Roger Brownsword
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199276806
- eISBN:
- 9780191707605
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276806.003.0007
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
This chapter completes the discussion of the regulatory challenges presented by modern technologies by considering some particular puzzles for regulatory cosmopolitanism. The first test case focuses ...
More
This chapter completes the discussion of the regulatory challenges presented by modern technologies by considering some particular puzzles for regulatory cosmopolitanism. The first test case focuses on the interpretation of the moral exclusion (against patentability) that is characteristic of European patent regimes, both regionally and locally. The second test case also concerns local moral exclusion but, this time, against the principle of market access that is enshrined in regional and international free trade agreements. The third case involves a more direct assertion of power by the local community. In this case, a nation state endeavours to enforce its own local standards, particularly where the effectiveness of its own local regulation threatens to be undermined by the technology of the internet, a technology that knows no physical borders.Less
This chapter completes the discussion of the regulatory challenges presented by modern technologies by considering some particular puzzles for regulatory cosmopolitanism. The first test case focuses on the interpretation of the moral exclusion (against patentability) that is characteristic of European patent regimes, both regionally and locally. The second test case also concerns local moral exclusion but, this time, against the principle of market access that is enshrined in regional and international free trade agreements. The third case involves a more direct assertion of power by the local community. In this case, a nation state endeavours to enforce its own local standards, particularly where the effectiveness of its own local regulation threatens to be undermined by the technology of the internet, a technology that knows no physical borders.
Feroz Ali
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- April 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780199463480
- eISBN:
- 9780199086344
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463480.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
India’s post-TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) patent law reforms, which incorporates a remarkable array of flexibilities is seen as a counter-harmonization measure in ...
More
India’s post-TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) patent law reforms, which incorporates a remarkable array of flexibilities is seen as a counter-harmonization measure in direct opposition to the dominant model of patent law pioneered by the United States. India’s response, which represents an alternative model of confirming to the TRIPS Agreement, has seen stiff resistance in the form of counter-provisions in Free Trade Agreements entered by the US and other countries. Historically, patent systems based on neo-liberalism, like the American model, favour individual pursuits whereas patent systems based on social democracy, like the Indian model, focus on community goals. This distinction manifests in the manner in which the role of the public is defined in the patent system. India’s model is characterized by the emphasis on the public elements in three significant ways. First, in redefining pre-grant opposition by allowing public participation in questioning the ex ante validity of patents. Second, in protecting the public domain by heightening the standard of patentability and requiring the patent applicant to demonstrate technical advance and greater effectiveness of the invention. Third, in providing for compulsory licensing when the public interest is affected by a patent that is not worked locally. The influence of the India’s model has come from mimicry by other countries in following the Indian example. Countries like Argentina, Philippines, Brazil, China, and South Africa have either emulated or strongly favour following India’s path. Such state practices might occasion the reimagination of the TRIPS Agreement as the Access Regime.Less
India’s post-TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) patent law reforms, which incorporates a remarkable array of flexibilities is seen as a counter-harmonization measure in direct opposition to the dominant model of patent law pioneered by the United States. India’s response, which represents an alternative model of confirming to the TRIPS Agreement, has seen stiff resistance in the form of counter-provisions in Free Trade Agreements entered by the US and other countries. Historically, patent systems based on neo-liberalism, like the American model, favour individual pursuits whereas patent systems based on social democracy, like the Indian model, focus on community goals. This distinction manifests in the manner in which the role of the public is defined in the patent system. India’s model is characterized by the emphasis on the public elements in three significant ways. First, in redefining pre-grant opposition by allowing public participation in questioning the ex ante validity of patents. Second, in protecting the public domain by heightening the standard of patentability and requiring the patent applicant to demonstrate technical advance and greater effectiveness of the invention. Third, in providing for compulsory licensing when the public interest is affected by a patent that is not worked locally. The influence of the India’s model has come from mimicry by other countries in following the Indian example. Countries like Argentina, Philippines, Brazil, China, and South Africa have either emulated or strongly favour following India’s path. Such state practices might occasion the reimagination of the TRIPS Agreement as the Access Regime.
Beryck Beyleveld and Roger Brownsword
- Published in print:
- 1993
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198268260
- eISBN:
- 9780191683473
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268260.003.0010
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law
This chapter considers the bearing of human dignity on the commercial exploitation of the human body. First, it discusses the patentability of human gene sequences. It then addresses contractual ...
More
This chapter considers the bearing of human dignity on the commercial exploitation of the human body. First, it discusses the patentability of human gene sequences. It then addresses contractual questions, for example, whether respect for human dignity requires that freedom of contract should be limited where the body is exploited in some way and that freedom to contract should be limited where genetic information is used to guide the choice of contractual partners.Less
This chapter considers the bearing of human dignity on the commercial exploitation of the human body. First, it discusses the patentability of human gene sequences. It then addresses contractual questions, for example, whether respect for human dignity requires that freedom of contract should be limited where the body is exploited in some way and that freedom to contract should be limited where genetic information is used to guide the choice of contractual partners.
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- March 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780226080611
- eISBN:
- 9780226080635
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226080635.003.0008
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
This chapter addresses the dangers of legislating industry-specific statutes. It also defends the proposition that courts, rather than Congress or the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), are the right ...
More
This chapter addresses the dangers of legislating industry-specific statutes. It also defends the proposition that courts, rather than Congress or the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), are the right place to implement those policy levers. Congress has spent the last four years, from 2005 to 2008, in an ultimately futile effort to reform the patent system. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries opposed virtually all elements of patent reform directed at abuse. It suggests that, as a general principle, a flexible common-law approach of ongoing judicial oversight will best accommodate new and different technologies within the general framework of a patent statute. The legal standards for patentability have remained squarely with the court. The separation of functions in the patent context may yield the best of both institutions; the expertise of the agency tempered by the independence of judicial review.Less
This chapter addresses the dangers of legislating industry-specific statutes. It also defends the proposition that courts, rather than Congress or the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), are the right place to implement those policy levers. Congress has spent the last four years, from 2005 to 2008, in an ultimately futile effort to reform the patent system. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries opposed virtually all elements of patent reform directed at abuse. It suggests that, as a general principle, a flexible common-law approach of ongoing judicial oversight will best accommodate new and different technologies within the general framework of a patent statute. The legal standards for patentability have remained squarely with the court. The separation of functions in the patent context may yield the best of both institutions; the expertise of the agency tempered by the independence of judicial review.
Shobita Parthasarathy
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780226437859
- eISBN:
- 9780226437996
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226437996.003.0003
- Subject:
- History, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine
Chapter 2 examines the beginning of the US and European life form patent controversies. It argues that almost from the outset, the two places approached the questions at stake, and how these ...
More
Chapter 2 examines the beginning of the US and European life form patent controversies. It argues that almost from the outset, the two places approached the questions at stake, and how these questions should be answered, completely differently. In the United States, life form patentability was treated as a normal legal question about the distinction between nature and technology. Despite efforts by Jeremy Rifkin and other civil society groups to raise ethics and ecosystem concerns, they and their worries were rebuffed as irrelevant by the Supreme Court and the patent system’s traditional stakeholders in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case. In Europe, life form patentability quickly became an exceptional question, to be solved by democratically-elected legislators in the newly powerful European Parliament. Legislators grappled with questions of whether biotechnology products were forms of life, how they should make this determination, and what kinds of knowledge and expertise were relevant to their discussions and to the patent system. They decided that they were indeed dealing with matters of life, and that such matters required consideration of ethics, as well as socioeconomic and ecosystem implications. They eventually passed the European Union’s Directive for the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, but with important limitations.Less
Chapter 2 examines the beginning of the US and European life form patent controversies. It argues that almost from the outset, the two places approached the questions at stake, and how these questions should be answered, completely differently. In the United States, life form patentability was treated as a normal legal question about the distinction between nature and technology. Despite efforts by Jeremy Rifkin and other civil society groups to raise ethics and ecosystem concerns, they and their worries were rebuffed as irrelevant by the Supreme Court and the patent system’s traditional stakeholders in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case. In Europe, life form patentability quickly became an exceptional question, to be solved by democratically-elected legislators in the newly powerful European Parliament. Legislators grappled with questions of whether biotechnology products were forms of life, how they should make this determination, and what kinds of knowledge and expertise were relevant to their discussions and to the patent system. They decided that they were indeed dealing with matters of life, and that such matters required consideration of ethics, as well as socioeconomic and ecosystem implications. They eventually passed the European Union’s Directive for the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, but with important limitations.
Carlos M. Correa
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- August 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199660759
- eISBN:
- 9780191749186
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660759.003.0014
- Subject:
- Economics and Finance, Economic Systems
The multilateral rules on intellectual property rights set out by the TRIPS Agreement limit the WTO members’ room to use foreign protected technologies for local production. However, governments ...
More
The multilateral rules on intellectual property rights set out by the TRIPS Agreement limit the WTO members’ room to use foreign protected technologies for local production. However, governments retain certain policy space under said Agreement to promote local production. They may adopt exceptions to patentability, and rigorously define the concept of ‘invention’ and of inventive step. They may also implement a broad experimentation exception to facilitate ‘inventing around’, the acquisition of voluntary or compulsory licenses, and legal challenges against invalid patents. Compulsory licenses for failure to work a patent or for ‘refusal to deal’ may also open the necessary space for local production in various industries.Less
The multilateral rules on intellectual property rights set out by the TRIPS Agreement limit the WTO members’ room to use foreign protected technologies for local production. However, governments retain certain policy space under said Agreement to promote local production. They may adopt exceptions to patentability, and rigorously define the concept of ‘invention’ and of inventive step. They may also implement a broad experimentation exception to facilitate ‘inventing around’, the acquisition of voluntary or compulsory licenses, and legal challenges against invalid patents. Compulsory licenses for failure to work a patent or for ‘refusal to deal’ may also open the necessary space for local production in various industries.
Stuart O. Schweitzer and Z. John Lu
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780190623784
- eISBN:
- 9780190623814
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190623784.003.0012
- Subject:
- Economics and Finance, Financial Economics
Patent protection, innovation, and profitability are all intimately connected in the pharmaceutical industry. Without patent protection there would be no marketing exclusivity, and competitors would ...
More
Patent protection, innovation, and profitability are all intimately connected in the pharmaceutical industry. Without patent protection there would be no marketing exclusivity, and competitors would immediately enter any market where there was a new successful drug, eventually driving price down to the marginal production cost. Future R&D would never take place because there would be no way for firms to earn a yield on those investments in developing new pharmaceuticals. Patents, however, entail societal cost, because they raise the diffusion cost of knowledge and makes some innovative drugs prohibitively expensive in the short run. This chapter examines key patent laws applicable to the pharmaceutical industry, including category, duration, scope, infringement, and ground for challenge, both in the United States and in other advanced economies. Examples of strategic behavior by branded and generic firms are discussed. The chapter also provides a review of recent literature critical of the patent system.Less
Patent protection, innovation, and profitability are all intimately connected in the pharmaceutical industry. Without patent protection there would be no marketing exclusivity, and competitors would immediately enter any market where there was a new successful drug, eventually driving price down to the marginal production cost. Future R&D would never take place because there would be no way for firms to earn a yield on those investments in developing new pharmaceuticals. Patents, however, entail societal cost, because they raise the diffusion cost of knowledge and makes some innovative drugs prohibitively expensive in the short run. This chapter examines key patent laws applicable to the pharmaceutical industry, including category, duration, scope, infringement, and ground for challenge, both in the United States and in other advanced economies. Examples of strategic behavior by branded and generic firms are discussed. The chapter also provides a review of recent literature critical of the patent system.
Carlos M Correa
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- November 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199684700
- eISBN:
- 9780191767562
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684700.003.0006
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
The adoption of a set of minimum binding standards for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) led to massive changes in the ...
More
The adoption of a set of minimum binding standards for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) led to massive changes in the national regimes of Latin American countries in the last twenty years. Major differences with the protection granted in developed countries (e.g. non-patentability of pharmaceutical products) were erased, thereby limiting the policy space available to Latin American countries to implement IPRs standards better suited to their levels of technological and economic development. While some of these countries have used, to a certain extent, the flexibilities allowed under the WTO rules, others entered into free trade agreements that further eroded such space. There is little evidence so far on the impact of these changes, but several studies point to considerable costs derived from the implementation of higher standards of protection, notably increased prices and more limited access to medicines.Less
The adoption of a set of minimum binding standards for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) led to massive changes in the national regimes of Latin American countries in the last twenty years. Major differences with the protection granted in developed countries (e.g. non-patentability of pharmaceutical products) were erased, thereby limiting the policy space available to Latin American countries to implement IPRs standards better suited to their levels of technological and economic development. While some of these countries have used, to a certain extent, the flexibilities allowed under the WTO rules, others entered into free trade agreements that further eroded such space. There is little evidence so far on the impact of these changes, but several studies point to considerable costs derived from the implementation of higher standards of protection, notably increased prices and more limited access to medicines.
Shobita Parthasarathy and Alexis Walker
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199334278
- eISBN:
- 9780199361106
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199334278.003.0011
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
Most legal scholars treat the major patent systems across the world as substantially similar. These systems reward inventors with intellectual property rights for a limited period of time, bring ...
More
Most legal scholars treat the major patent systems across the world as substantially similar. These systems reward inventors with intellectual property rights for a limited period of time, bring scientific and legal knowledge to bear on the assessment of patent applications, and have substantially similar approaches to patentability. But this is not the full story. Using the European patent system as a case study, this chapter argues that when patent systems are understood through a social and political lens, they exhibit many important differences. We demonstrate that the European patent system’s distinct history and social and political context have shaped its policies and practices, but also its responses to the growing activist challenges that have plagued patent systems over the past three decades. Understanding these differences, and the reasons for them, enhances our understanding of both the patent system’s role in the governance of innovation and our ability to predict its evolution in the face of controversy over its responsibility to the public interest.Less
Most legal scholars treat the major patent systems across the world as substantially similar. These systems reward inventors with intellectual property rights for a limited period of time, bring scientific and legal knowledge to bear on the assessment of patent applications, and have substantially similar approaches to patentability. But this is not the full story. Using the European patent system as a case study, this chapter argues that when patent systems are understood through a social and political lens, they exhibit many important differences. We demonstrate that the European patent system’s distinct history and social and political context have shaped its policies and practices, but also its responses to the growing activist challenges that have plagued patent systems over the past three decades. Understanding these differences, and the reasons for them, enhances our understanding of both the patent system’s role in the governance of innovation and our ability to predict its evolution in the face of controversy over its responsibility to the public interest.
Feroz Ali
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- April 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780199463480
- eISBN:
- 9780199086344
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463480.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
Indian reforms to patent law have drawn polarized reactions, however, the reforms have been in the making since India gained Independence and can hardly be classified entirely as a response to the ...
More
Indian reforms to patent law have drawn polarized reactions, however, the reforms have been in the making since India gained Independence and can hardly be classified entirely as a response to the TRIPS Agreement. Indeed, the Indian model shows that there can be an alternative to patent systems propounded by developed nations that favour the public and adhere to socio-democratic principles. This chapter highlights the transition of the patent model in India and describes the rationale for its current patent system. Further, this chapter examines the amendments brought forth to comply with the TRIPS and the amendments meant to ameliorate such compliances. The provisions of the Patent Act that were amended following the TRIPS and the manner in which they affect the Indian public are examined.Less
Indian reforms to patent law have drawn polarized reactions, however, the reforms have been in the making since India gained Independence and can hardly be classified entirely as a response to the TRIPS Agreement. Indeed, the Indian model shows that there can be an alternative to patent systems propounded by developed nations that favour the public and adhere to socio-democratic principles. This chapter highlights the transition of the patent model in India and describes the rationale for its current patent system. Further, this chapter examines the amendments brought forth to comply with the TRIPS and the amendments meant to ameliorate such compliances. The provisions of the Patent Act that were amended following the TRIPS and the manner in which they affect the Indian public are examined.
Feroz Ali
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- April 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780199463480
- eISBN:
- 9780199086344
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463480.003.0004
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
Patents are not granted uniformly across nations as the standards for patentability varies across nations. This chapter analyses standards of patentability, specifically nonobviousness and the ...
More
Patents are not granted uniformly across nations as the standards for patentability varies across nations. This chapter analyses standards of patentability, specifically nonobviousness and the enhancement of efficacy, for pharmaceutical patents. The new definition of nonobviousness laid down by the Patents Act has serious ramifications in terms of raising the bar on inventions that can be patented. A further significance of the new definition is that it places the burden of disclosure squarely on the patent applicant. This chapter then examines the threshold requirement of enhancement of efficacy. The provision itself has been introduced to curb any initiative to patent bioequivalents. The judicial determination of the meaning of the term ‘efficacy’ and the legislative intent behind the provision are explained herein.Less
Patents are not granted uniformly across nations as the standards for patentability varies across nations. This chapter analyses standards of patentability, specifically nonobviousness and the enhancement of efficacy, for pharmaceutical patents. The new definition of nonobviousness laid down by the Patents Act has serious ramifications in terms of raising the bar on inventions that can be patented. A further significance of the new definition is that it places the burden of disclosure squarely on the patent applicant. This chapter then examines the threshold requirement of enhancement of efficacy. The provision itself has been introduced to curb any initiative to patent bioequivalents. The judicial determination of the meaning of the term ‘efficacy’ and the legislative intent behind the provision are explained herein.
Eran Liss and Dan Adin
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- April 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780199917419
- eISBN:
- 9780190260149
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199917419.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
This chapter discusses various issues relating to Israel's patent law. It first explains what is protected under patent law, subject matter eligibility, and substantial patentability requirements. It ...
More
This chapter discusses various issues relating to Israel's patent law. It first explains what is protected under patent law, subject matter eligibility, and substantial patentability requirements. It then considers how patent protection can be obtained, including procedural patentability requirements pertaining to the contents of the patent application, along with a range of issues that arise in the course of the registration process of a patent application and those relating to opposition and cancellation proceedings. It also examines what constitutes patent infringement and additional patent-relevant topics such as ownership and licenses, double patenting, inventorship, antitrust laws, and special rules concerning security and state-related inventions.Less
This chapter discusses various issues relating to Israel's patent law. It first explains what is protected under patent law, subject matter eligibility, and substantial patentability requirements. It then considers how patent protection can be obtained, including procedural patentability requirements pertaining to the contents of the patent application, along with a range of issues that arise in the course of the registration process of a patent application and those relating to opposition and cancellation proceedings. It also examines what constitutes patent infringement and additional patent-relevant topics such as ownership and licenses, double patenting, inventorship, antitrust laws, and special rules concerning security and state-related inventions.
Eran Liss and Dan Adin
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- April 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780199917419
- eISBN:
- 9780190260149
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199917419.003.0010
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
This chapter discusses major intellectual property issues that arise in relation to the pharmaceutical industry in Israel, from patent term extension to data exclusivity, the patentability of ...
More
This chapter discusses major intellectual property issues that arise in relation to the pharmaceutical industry in Israel, from patent term extension to data exclusivity, the patentability of pharmaceutical inventions, and trademarks. It explains who may apply for patent term extension, the scope of the extension order and how to obtain it, and the level of drug efficacy that is required to be included in a patent application. It also examines the eligibility of second medical use for patent protection, “obvious to try” v. hindsight, Israeli Trademark Office rules and practice with respect to trademark applications in class 5, and likelihood of confusion between trademarks.Less
This chapter discusses major intellectual property issues that arise in relation to the pharmaceutical industry in Israel, from patent term extension to data exclusivity, the patentability of pharmaceutical inventions, and trademarks. It explains who may apply for patent term extension, the scope of the extension order and how to obtain it, and the level of drug efficacy that is required to be included in a patent application. It also examines the eligibility of second medical use for patent protection, “obvious to try” v. hindsight, Israeli Trademark Office rules and practice with respect to trademark applications in class 5, and likelihood of confusion between trademarks.
