Abstract
The conjunction of biotechnology and intellectual property rights (IPR) has serious implications for law and society. Intellectual property laws, which were framed in the industrial age, have proved to be inefficient in the present information age. Existing patent laws are confronted with new genetic inventions, which differ markedly from mechanical and chemical inventions that have been the traditional subject matters of patents. Modern biotechnology inventions, particularly genetic inventions, have become more valuable as an embodiment of information as compared to their physical attributes. The advent of bioinformatics and genetic databases demands a different patent approach, much in tune with the present information age. Although, it is not possible to create new IPR every time when a new technology emerges, however, fitting all sorts of inventions in a single set of law is also problematic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
447 U.S. 303.
- 2.
Eisenberg (2006).
- 3.
Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149Â F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
- 4.
Bilski et al. V. Kappos, No. 08–964 (2010) slip op. at 9
- 5.
Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v United States Patent and Trademark Office et al., No. 09-CV 4515, (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2010).
- 6.
Amgen Inc. v Chugai Pharma. Co. 927Â F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
- 7.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus, 628 F. 3d 1347, reversed.
- 8.
Rule 23 e (2) of the Implementing Regulations, supra note 413.
- 9.
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [2002 SCC 76, 116–121 per Bastarache J., and 89–102 per Binnie J.].
- 10.
Ex Parte Allen 2 U.S.P.Q.2d,1425, 2 (1987).
- 11.
MPPP, Chapter 8 Para 03.05.02 80–81( 2011).
- 12.
Eisenberg (2000).
- 13.
Green Peace Ltd v. Plant Genetic System N.V. (Case no. T 0356/93-334 dated 21-02-1995) Point 34.
- 14.
Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, Nov. 20, 2001, adopted Nov. 14, 2001, para. 17 and 19 [hereinafter Doha Declaration] para. 19; See also para. 17 (stressing the importance of implementing and interpreting the TRIPS Agreement ‘‘in a manner supportive of public health, by promoting both access to existing medicines and research and development into new medicines,’’ in connection with which the Doha Ministerial issued a separate, and more detailed declaration.
- 15.
Walsh et al. (2003).
- 16.
Sumikura (2009).
- 17.
Sec. 3(k) of the Patents Act, 2005.
- 18.
Supra note 2Â at 50.
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957which includes computer databases under the definition of literary works. Cited in Supra note 2 at 50.
- 21.
Section 2(ffc) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- 22.
Supra note 2 at 50.
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990); Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hospital, 2003 WL 21246347 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2003); 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003); Washington University v Catalona 437 F. Supp. 2d 985 (E.D. Mo. 2006), aff’d, 490 F.3d 667 (8th Cir 2007), cert. denied,128 S. Ct. 1122 (2008)
References
Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, Nov. 20, 2001, adopted Nov. 14, 2001
Eisenberg Rebecca S. (2000) Re-Examining the Role of Patents in Appropriating the Value of DNA Sequences. Emory Law Journal 49: 783
Eisenberg Rebecca (2006) The story of Diamond v. Chakrabarty: technological change and the subject matter boundaries of the patent system. In: Jane Ginsberg and Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss (eds.) Intellectual Property Stories. Foundation Press, New York, p. 349
Sumikura Koichi (2009) Intellectual property rights policy for gene-related inventions-toward optimum balance between public and private ownership. In: David Castle (Ed.) The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham U.K./Massachusetts U.S.A., p. 88
Walsh John P, Arora Ashish, Cohen Wesley M. (2003) Working through the patent problem. Science 299: 14
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer India
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Singh, K. (2015). Conclusion and Suggestions. In: Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2059-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2059-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2058-9
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2059-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)