Legislating on biopiracy in Europe: too little, too late?

This Handbook considers the international struggle to provide for proper and just protection of Indigenous intellectual property. Leading scholars consider legal and policy controversies over Indigenous knowledge in the fields of international law, copyright law, trademark law, patent law, trade secrets law, and cultural heritage. This collection examines national developments in Indigenous intellectual property from around the world. As well as examining the historical origins of conflicts over Indigenous knowledge, the volume examines new challenges to Indigenous intellectual property from emerging developments in information technology, biotechnology, and climate change.

Trade wars in the TRIPS Council: Intellectual property, technology transfer, and climate change

This Chapter considers the geopolitical conflicts in respect of intellectual property, trade, and climate change in the TRIPS Agreement 1994 under the World Trade Organization (WTO). In particular, it focuses upon debates in the TRIPS Council on the topic of patent law and clean energy in 2013 and 2014. The chapter highlights the development agenda of a number of developing countries who are keen for access to clean energy to combat climate change and global warming. It also considers the mixed contributions of members of the BRICS/ BASIC group – including Brazil, India, China, and South Africa. This chapter highlights the intellectual property maximalist position of a number of developed countries on intellectual property, climate change, and trade. Seeking to overcome this conflict and stalemate, this Chapter puts forward both procedural and substantial reform options in respect of intellectual property, trade, and climate change in the TRIPS Council and the WTO. It also flags that the TRIPS Agreement 1994 could well be displaced by the rise of mega-regional trade agreements – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

The right to health, the TRIPS agreement and the public health safeguards to encourage the universal access to essential medicines

The privileges arising from patent protection on pharmaceutical products often prevent the full realization of the right to health, especially in developing countries with scarce resources. This thesis first identifies the international agreements that have established the right to health in international law, obligations and violations associated with it, the problems encountered in the implementation of human rights on the field, compared with the implementation and sanctions associated with economic rights from the World Trade Organization regulatory framework. A comparative study of the legislative frameworks of both developed and developing countries will reveal to what extent Canada, the United States, the European Union, Brazil, India, and South Africa conformed with patent protection exceptions arising from international patent law to protect public health. Finally, the author identifies the crucial indicators that need to be considered in order to assess the conformity of a given approach with the right to health, before he underscores the temporary character of the relevant WTO measures, and the future stakes concerning an increased access to essential medicines.

The patentability of human genetic material in China : a comparative analysis

"Mémoire Présenté à la Faculté des Études Supérieures en vue de l'obtention du Grade de Maîtrise En Droit Option Recherche"

Notions d'éthique dans la brevetabilité des inventions : une étude de droit comparé

Le droit des brevets a pour but premier de favoriser les développements technologiques et industriels. Cependant, à l’heure actuelle, ce domaine voit son rôle confronté à une forme de crise, à cause plus précisément des avancées constatées dans le secteur des biotechnologies. De difficiles questions fondamentales se posent à différents niveaux, que ce soit socialement, moralement et légalement. Au vu de ces observations, la question est de savoir, dans le cadre de cette étude, si la régulation devrait être plus signifiante en tenant compte des considérations morales et éthiques dans le processus de brevetabilité. Cette étude a donc pour but de comparer et d’évaluer les diverses solutions proposées en Europe, aux États-Unis et au Canada, afin de déterminer quelle serait la voie envisageable vers la résolution de cette problématique. Par exemple, dans ce contexte, on peut pointer l’approche européenne, où la CBE et la Directive du Parlement européen relative à la protection des inventions biotechnologiques (98/44/CE) semblent introduire des notions éthiques dans leurs textes juridiques. Un tel procédé apporte des notions qui peuvent être considérées comme vagues et évolutives dans un processus qui se veut apparemment technique. Alors que si l’on prend l’approche nord-américaine, celle-ci se fonde sur des critères de brevetabilité dénués de toutes considérations morales. Par l’analyse de ces éléments, une voie possible pourrait être décrite vers un système des brevets qui répondrait mieux aux exigences actuelles.

Brevets : rédaction et interprétation des revendications, validité et contrefaçon

Ce mémoire traite des brevets d'invention. Le premier volet dresse un portrait global de l'institution juridique du brevet, tout en en rappelant sommairement les fondements économique et philosophique. Après une brève présentation des conditions préalables à sa délivrance, nous discutons des composantes matérielles du brevet, soit la description de l’invention et les revendications. Une attention particulière est portée à la rédaction ainsi qu'à l'interprétation des revendications. Nous traitons ainsi de deux types de revendications spécialisées qui se sont développés avec l'usage, respectivement les revendications de type Jepson et Markush, pour ensuite recenser les principes d'interprétation des revendications que les tribunaux ont établis. Le deuxième volet traite de la validité et de la contrefaçon de brevet. Sur la question de la validité, nous abordons les principaux motifs pouvant entraîner l'invalidité du brevet, soit: l’ambiguïté, l'insuffisance de la divulgation, le double brevet, l'absence de nouveauté, l'évidence et l'absence d'utilité. Enfin, sur la question de la contrefaçon, nous examinons les circonstances dans lesquelles les actes commis par les tiers portent atteinte au monopole du titulaire de brevet. Pour ce faire, nous nous attardons à la portée des droits exclusifs qui sont reconnus à ce dernier. Tant en ce qui a trait à la validité qu'à la contrefaçon, nous recourons à des illustrations jurisprudentielles permettant de constater les incidences litigieuses afférentes, d'une part, aux motifs d'invalidité et, d'autre part, aux actes de contrefaçon.

La notion d'inventeur dans le contexte universitaire

Dans le domaine des brevets d'invention, la notion d'inventeur pose des difficultés particulières dans le contexte universitaire. L'une d'elles concerne l'identification de l'inventeur. La loi canadienne est très claire sur ce point: un brevet est accordé « à l'inventeur ». Cela peut être problématique quand on a affaire à une équipe de chercheurs composée de personnes qui n'ont pas le même statut: professeur régulier de l'Université, professeur chercheur payé par une subvention de recherche, chercheur qui s'est joint temporairement à l'équipe, étudiants gradués ou non, etc. Une autre problématique concerne la question de savoir si une Université peut prétendre qu'elle s'est fait céder les droits des brevetés, soit parce qu'ils ont le statut d'employé, ou par le libellé d'une clause dans une convention collective, ou par l'existence d'une politique adoptée sur ce sujet. Le présent texte cherche à faire connaître l'état du droit sur ces questions.

Patentability and Scope of Protection for DNA Sequence

Since the mapping of the human genome and the technical innovations in the field of biotechnology, patent law has gone through great controversies. Protection is required for an investor to make an investment but how broad should the given protection be? Whether the invention is a mi- cro-organism capable of dissolving crude oil, or the gene of a soya plant, the genetic engineering required for their production entails vast amounts of capi- tal. The policy in that respect is tailored by legislative acts and judicial decisions, ensuring a fair balance be- tween the interests of patent right holders and third parties. However, the policy differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, thus creating inconsistencies with re- gards to the given protection to the same invention, and as a result this could deter innovation and pro- mote stagnation. The most active actors shaping the patent policy on an international level are the patent offices of the United States of America, Japan and the European Patent Organization. These three patent offices have set up a cooperation programme in order to promote and improve efficiency with regards to their patent policies on a global scale. However, recent judicial de- velopments have shown that the policy in respect to the field of biotechnology differs between the patent regimes of the United States of America and the two- layer system of the European Patent Organisation/ the European Union.

Plant genomics: More than food for thought

In all but the poorest countries of South Asia and Africa, the supply and quality of food will rise to meet the demand. Biotechnology, accelerated by genomics, will create wealth for both producers and consumers by reducing the cost and increasing the quality of food. Famine and malnutrition in the poorest countries may be alleviated by applying genomics or other tools of biotechnology to improving subsistence crops. The role of the public sector and the impact of patent law both could be great, but government policies on these issues are still unclear.

Causation and Harm in a Multicomponent World

On September 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued another decision in the epic Apple v. Samsung smartphone war. This was the fourth court decision in the ongoing saga to deal with injunctions. Apple IV explained the level of proof necessary to satisfy the "causal nexus" requirement. This requirement had emerged as a response to patent litigations involving products with thousands of features, the vast majority of which are unrelated to the asserted patent. To prove a causal nexus, patentees seeking an injunction have to do more than just show that the infringing product caused the patentee irreparable harm. The harm must be specifically attributable to the infringing feature. In Apple IV, the Federal Circuit noted that proving causation was "nearly impossible" in these multicomponent cases. So it decided to water down the causal nexus requirement saying that it was enough for Apple to show that the infringing features were "important"and customer sought these particular features. This lower standard is an ill-advised mistake that leaves multicomponent product manufacturers more susceptible to patent holdup. My critique takes two parts. First, I argue that a single infringing feature rarely, if ever, "causes" consumers to buy the infringer’s multicomponent products. The minor features at issue in Apple IV illustrate this point vividly. Thus, the new causal nexus standard does not accurately reflect how causation and harm operate in a multicomponent world. Second, I explain why the court was so willing to accept such little evidence of real injury. It improperly applied notions of traditional property law to patents. Specifically, the court viewed patent infringement as harmful regardless of any concrete consequences. This view may resonate for other forms of property where an owner's rights are paramount and a trespass is considered offensive in and of itself. But the same concepts do not apply to patent law where the Supreme Court has consistently said that private interests must take a back seat to the public good. Based on these principles, the courts should restore the "causal nexus" requirement and not presume causation.

Horizontal Innovation and Interface Patents

Scholars understandably devote a great deal of effort to studying how well patent law works to incentive the most important inventions. After all, these inventions form the foundation of our new technological age. But very little time is spent focusing on the other end of the spectrum, inventions that are no better than what the public already has. At first blush, studying such “horizontal” innovation seems pointless. But this inquiry actually reveals much about how patents can be used in unintended, and arguably, anticompetitive ways. This issue has roots in one unintuitive aspect of patent law. Despite the law’s goal of promoting innovation, patents can be obtained on inventions that are no better than existing technology. Such patents might appear worthless, but companies regularly obtain these patents to cover interfaces. That is because interface patents actually derive value from two distinct characteristics. First, they can have “innovation value” that is based on how much better the patentedinterface is than existing technology. Second, interface patents can also have “compatibility value.” In other words, the patented technology is often essential to make products operate (i.e. compatible) with a particular interface. In practical terms, this means that an interface patent that covers little or no meaningful advance can give a company the ability to extract rents and foreclose competition. This undesirable result is a consequence of how patent law has structured its remedies. For years patent law has implicitly awarded both innovation and compatibility values. Recently, the courts have taken a sensible first step and excluded compatibility value from reasonable royalty recoveries for standard essential patents. This Article argues that the law needs to go further and do the same for all essential interface patents. Additionally, patent law should reform the way it awards injunctions and lost profits to also exclude compatibility value. This proposal has two benefits. It would eliminate the incentives for wasteful patents on horizontal technology. Second, and more importantly, the value of all interfacepatents would be better aligned with the goals of the patent system.

Os limites constitucionais ao exercício de direito de patente e seus reflexos na indústria do petróleo, gás natural e biocombustíveis

This dissertation deals with the constitutional limits on the exercise of patent rights and its effects on the oil, natural gas and biofuels. Held with the support of ANP / PETROBRAS, It seeks to show how the law will limit the exercise of industrial property, based on a reinterpretation of private law by the constitutional development perspective . Today it is a fact that Petrobras, a Brazilian joint venture, has the latest technology in various sectors of the oil industry, and is one of the highest investments in developing new technologies. The overall objective of this thesis is to establish the relationship between the public interest of the Petroleum Industry, Natural Gas and Biofuels and constitutional limits to the free exercise of patent rights, then confirm or refute our hypothesis that Article 71 on Industrial Property Law is contrary to the existing objectives in Article 3 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. The research aims to examine the relevant aspects of the legal nature attributed to IPGN constitutionally confronting the constitutional limits on the free exercise of patent rights, with the purpose to outline the state of the performance limits in the regulation of the economy, in particular the application of feasibility limitations on the right of property in favor of national interest on the strategic energy industry. The aim is to confront the fundamental rights to property and economic development, against the public interest, limiting these first. As to the objectives, the research will be theoretical and descriptive and harvest of industrial property, respect the possible impact of regulatory standards and limiting the right of ownership in the oil industry. To establish how the state will mitigate the intellectual property right, we discuss, at first, a definition of public interest from the general theory of state and sovereign character in order to establish a new concept of national interest and popular interest, which will in turn the definition of our concept of public interest. In the second phase, will be addressed the issue of industrial property rights and how to will be free exercise thereof, in the constitutional sphere, infra, and demonstrating the use of industrial property rights with examples of market and IPGN . After situating the industrial property rights in the constitution and national legislation, establish their relationship with the national and regional development, will be addressed in this chapter in particular the patent law, as most usual form of intellectual property protection in IPGN. Used a study highlighting the number of patents in the area of the analyzed industry, demonstrating with hard data the importance of a sector for industrial development. The relationship between the social function of intellectual property and the constitutional objective of development was characterized to demonstrate the strategic nature of oil to Brazil in the national and international scene, and put into question the hypothesis of the research which provides that even with large investments the lack of legal certainty in the sector turns out not to have a considerable volume of investment as it could.

Broad Concerns about Nanotechnology Patents: Symptoms and Diagnosis

We discuss the concerns that the patenting activity in the new nanotechnologies could blur the line between what is considered a discovery and what can be considered as an invention. We find that the nature of nanotechnology products, research, and the development agendas in science and engineering fields that include biomimetics pose a challenge to the present practice of including chemicals as eligible patent subject matter. After revisiting the historical development of patent law and noting its divergence from the developments in science and technology, we introduce the distinction between simple and complex machines as these relate to chemistry and nanotechnology. This distinction poses the question of what is the logical category of inventions that fall within patentable subject matter given that patent law was conceived to cover simple machines, not complex ones.

Standardisation and patent ambush : potential liability under Australian competition law

This article examines the problem of patent ambush in standard setting, where patent owners are sometimes able to capture industry standards in order to secure monopoly power and windfall profits. Because standardisation generally introduces high switching costs, patent ambush can impose significant costs on downstream manufacturers and consumers and drastically reduce the efficiency gains of standardisation.This article considers how Australian competition law is likely to apply to patent ambush both in the development of a standard (through misrepresenting the existence of an essential patent) and after a standard is implemented (through refusing to license an essential patented technology either at all or on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms). This article suggests that non-disclosure of patent interests is unlikely to restrained by Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (TPA), and refusals to license are only likely to be restrained if the refusal involves leveraging or exclusive dealing. By contrast, Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs) which seek to limit this behaviour through private ordering may face considerable scrutiny under the new cartel provisions of the TPA. This article concludes that SSOs may be best advised to implement administrative measures to prevent patent hold-up, such as reviewing which patents are essential for the implementation of a standard, asking patent holders to make their licence conditions public to promote transparency, and establishing forums where patent licensees can complain about licence terms that they consider to be unreasonable or discriminatory. Additionally, the ACCC may play a role in authorising SSO policies that could otherwise breach the new cartel provisions, but which have the practical effect of promoting competition in the standards setting environment.