Patent trolls and patent-busters

In recent times, there have been concerns that the patent system been abused by opportunistic companies known by the phrase "patent trolls". It has been alleged that such entities have stunted innovation and spurred unnecessary patent litigation...

Gene patent practice across plant and human genomes

The uses of genetic sequences to inform, enable or create products or services for human biomedicine are substantially different from their uses in crop-based agriculture. Here, we explore what similarities and differences may emerge in patent use and strategies, and map patent-disclosed sequences onto three important plant genomes: maize (corn), rice and soybean. We focus on those referenced in the granted patent claims to compare their uses to the approach used in human gene patenting.

Public disclosure of biological sequences in global patent practice

Biological sequences are an important part of global patenting, with unique challenges for their effective and equitable use in practice and in policy. Because their function can only be determined with computer-aided technology, the form in which sequences are disclosed matters greatly. Similarly, the scope of patent rights sought and granted requires computer readable data and tools for comparison. Critically, the primary data provided to the national patent offices and thence to the public, must be comprehensive, standardized, timely and meaningful. It is not yet. The proposed global Patent Sequence (PatSeq) Data platform can enable national and regional jurisdictions meet the desired standards.

Patent litigation in Europe

We compare patent litigation cases across four European jurisdictions – Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK – covering cases filed during the period 2000-2008. For our analysis, we assemble a new dataset that contains detailed information at the case, litigant, and patent level for patent cases filed at the major courts in the four jurisdictions. We find substantial differences across jurisdictions in terms of case loads. Courts in Germany hear by far the largest number of cases in absolute terms, but also when taking country size into account. We also find important between-country differences in terms of outcomes, the share of cases that is appealed, as well as the characteristics of litigants and litigated patents. A considerable number of patents are litigated in multiple jurisdictions, but the majority of patents are subject to litigation only in one of the four jurisdictions.

E-Participation and E-Participants: solving the patent ‘crisis’

One of the major planks of some visions for E-Gov is that there is a willing participatory group who are more than happy to be involved in new forms of democracy and will be active and useful suppliers of input to e-consultation or e-participation processes. This group is different from that which goes online to the government site web and signs a petition asking the prime minister to resign. It is becoming clear, though, that the commitment to e-participation may well be there in theory, but difficult to access in practice. Further, the participation which is most welcome can frequently require training and expertise which is not widely available or there may be differences in opinion as to the point of participation. In this paper I will look to the attempts to encourage participation in the patent system. The UK is about to initiate a trial system utilising New York Law School’s Peer To Patent project, but has also attempted to involve participants in previous consultation exercises. I will use these as demonstrations of the sorts of problems which e-participation has met, and consider whether this new form of E-Gov is perhaps being oversold. The interesting question is whether participation is a growing tool which can ensure better public services from the State. My conclusion is that consultation and participatory projects can demonstrate involvement and are certainly educative but e-participatory projects are most likely incapable of achieving the goals set by their more optimistic advocates. The paper emphasises the patents field, but the lessons from it can – I suggest – be viewed as indicators having wider governance relevance. The primary point being made is that the technocratic view is always over-optimistic.

European Law and New Health Technologies

Health is a matter of fundamental importance in European societies, both as a human right in itself, and as a factor in a productive workforce and therefore a healthy economy. New health technologies promise improved quality of life for patients suffering from a range of diseases, and the potential for the prevention of incidence of disease in the future. At the same time, new health technologies pose significant challenges for governments, particularly in relation to ensuring the technologies are safe, effective, and provide appropriate value for (public) money.

To guard against the possible dangers arising from new health technologies, and to maximize the benefits, all European governments regulate their development, marketing, and public financing. In addition, several international institutions operating at European level, in particular the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the European Patent Office, have become involved in the regulation of new health technologies. They have done so both through traditional 'command and control' legal measures, and through other regulatory mechanisms, including guidelines, soft law, 'steering' through redistribution of resources, and private or quasi-private regulation.

This collection analyses European law and its relationships with new health technologies. It uses interdisciplinary insights, particularly from law but also drawing on regulation theory, and science and technology studies, to shed new light on some of the key defining features of the relationships and especially the roles of risk, rights, ethics, and markets. The collection explores the way in which European law's engagement with new health technologies is to be legitimized, and discusses the implications for biological or biomedical citizenship.

By-Law No. 56

The by-law reads: "Be it enacted as a By-Law of the Ontario Grape Growing & Wine Manufacturing Company Limited that the Directors be and they are hereby authorized to make application to the lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Ontario, for issuance of Supplementary letters Patent providing for, 1) Changing the name of the said Company to Barnes Wines, Limited. 2) The Management of the affairs of the Company by a Board of 7 Directors. 3) Re-dividing the Capitol Stock of the Company from 60 shares of par value of $500.00 each, to 6000 shares of par value of $5.00 each. Passed this 5th day of February A.D. 1934."

Barnes Wines, Limited By-Law No. 71

The summary of the bill reads: "A By-Law authorizing an application for supplementary letters patent re-classifying and increasing the capital of the company."

Barnes Wines, Limited By-Law No. 77

The summary of the By-Law reads: "A By-Law to authorize an application for supplementary letters patent to alter the authorized capital by reducing the same in respect of the preference shares, cancelled and retired, and increasing the capital by the creation of additional preference shares."

Intellectual property law in Southeast Asia : Recent legislative and institutional developments

Over the last few decades, countries belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) all had to revise their intellectual property systems. These revisions resulted at first from bilateral pressure of major trading partners such as the US and EU, then from the WTO-TRIPS Agreement and more recently from bilateral Free Trade Agreements. To observe the IP developments in ASEAN over this period is interesting, because this group of countries covers developed (Singapore), developing as well as least developed countries. All countries had to reform their outdated laws from the colonial era in very short time. However, in comparison to the early 1980s, important differences with regards to intellectual property policies have emerged in recent years.

This article will briefly sketch the developments in individual ASEAN countries and after that examine some broader trends in law making, IP administration, enforcement and the court system. It concludes that the ASEAN enlargement process has created a very diverse picture with regards to IP. With the fast pace of the legislative development, countries have been struggling to keep up with the creation of the institutional and administrative framework. Progress in the ASEAN harmonisation process has been limited. Statistics indicate that some of the new laws have been reasonably well received at the domestic level, while the patent sector remains foreign dominated.