Abstract This work examines the issue of human stem cell research from the view of the medical profession with an eye on funding, the public perspective and legislation affecting research of the human genome. Specifically this work explores the patenting process, whether patenting the human genome is plausible, and what consequences might exist in these patents. The paper notes the veritable quietness of the legal community at large in relation to this medical research issue.
Outline:
Abstract
Objective
Terms & Definitions of Study
Introduction
I. Implications of Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
II. Implications of Later Cases
III. Free Market System Impacts
IV. What Ways Do Patents Objectify Human Dignity?
V. Is there a 'just' way of thinking about intellectual property law?
VI. Rights - Technological
VII. Ethics of Patenting the Technique for Human Stem Cell Lines
Summary & Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper "In review of the patent laws in the United States, the U.S. Patent laws provides that the patent begin on the date that the patent is issued and ends 20 years later on the same date however, in special circumstances that date might be different and patents are considered for extensions as well. In order for issuance of a patent the invention must be a process that is both 'new' and 'useful' and must be a 'process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter' furthermore the invention must bee the standards of 'utility, novelty and non-obviousness' and must be something that is not in use publicly, not in written form or known to others in the same field of study."
Abstract This paper briefly talks about the origins of the U.S. patent system and then describes the underlying basis for patenting laws, explains how patents differ from copyrights and trademarks, looks at current considerations in patenting law, and describes some of the global issues regarding patents, as well as issues between the United States and Japan concerning patents.
Theoretical Basis for Patent and Copyright Grants
Differences between Patent and Copyright
Current Considerations
Total Patents Issued
Problems with Patents Global Patent Environment
US-Japan Patent Issues
From the Paper "The United States Patent system is almost as old as the nation: President George Washington signed the bill leading to its creation on April 10, 1790. It was the first time in history that the right of an inventor to profit from his 'intellectual property' had been recognized by law. Until that time, in Europe at least and in the colonies, inventors merely had privileges regarding their inventions, privileges that could be withdrawn at the monarch's whim. Occasionally, special acts of a legislature would grant some rights, also, but the process could hardly be called as system, and was capricious and applied unequally at best."
Abstract The U.S. Patent Office has recently granted at a patent to the company Pfizer for its miracle drug "Viagra", but the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe have thrown out Pfizer's patent application after examination. The paper examines the way Pfizer patented the way "Viagra" blocks a certain enzyme in the body as well as the composition of the drug, but as two different patents. It explores the difficulty in patenting drugs due to the complex language surrounding patent law. The paper examines several examples of infringement of this law with regard to "Viagra", as well as the difference in patent applications in Germany, Britain and the United States.
From the Paper "Idea theft is an interesting concept because it is an intangible good, whereas chemical composition is a tangible good, but the research that went into creating the compound needs to be rewarded and did begin with a great idea. Inventors have the incentive to invent by being first to market, to achieve the intangible, all powerful, good will of the consumer. Idea theft can cover the elements within the pill, Viagra, but not to the way it is necessarily used by the body. For example, one cannot patent pill swallowing, but the U.S. Patent Office will stretch to patent the way a pill awakens a man's "willie". Lessig pointed out a very profound question about intellectual property rights to the Internet world, but new technology does not exist solely within the computer sector. When our society undergoes a transition to a new technology (i.e., the Internet, business process patents, drug-use patents), we need to revise the length at which monopoly power is extended and ask ourselves "whether that power makes sense. Is it necessary" Is there reason to believe it will do some good?? (216). In this case, the patent does nothing but hinder invention and impede scientific innovation. Monopolistic power does not make sense outside the boundaries of business, which the Viagra patent clearly is."
Abstract In this article, the writer introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of biology and biodiversity. Specifically the writer discusses the possibility of patenting living things and looks at what the limitations are on this patenting process. The writer explains that living things can be patented, but there are certain limitations on the patenting process. The writer also notes that there are numerous ethical issues surrounding the patenting of living things, and the morality of this practice comes into question. However, the ethics of this practice remain in question. The writer concludes that the Patent office should have guidelines that severely restrict the issuing of patents on living things, because living things, especially humans, should never become a commodity.
From the Paper "This created impetus to patent all types of living things, from bacterium to the Harvard mouse, and today, patents are routinely granted on living things, seemingly without any thought. The Patent office does not allow the patenting of a human being, but in the case of the law on mammal cloning, humans are not excluded from the language of the patent, which leaves the patent open to human as well as other types of mammal cloning. Therefore, the Patent office is sending mixed messages with its granting of patents, and it could be conceivable that the office would support a patent for human beings in the future. This is a frightening thought for many people who do not support the idea of cloning humans on both religious and moral grounds, and it will certainly lead to a public outcry if it occurs."
Abstract This paper illustrates, analyzes and compares articles regarding the existing obligations or provisions regarding international patent law. It examines those provisions that fall under the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Berne Convention and the Rome Convention. It also looks at the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits and the European patent Convention, the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits and the European patent Convention.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Implementation Of The Trips Agreement
National And Most-Favored-Nation Treatment
Patent Right Exhaustion: Doha Declaration (Analysis Of Article 6)
TRIPS And Article 7 (Technological Promotion And Public Protection) Health Analysis
General Enforcement Obligations: Analysis Of Article 41
Fair And Equitable Procedures Article 42
Evidence (Article 43)
Article 45: Damages - Comparison and Analysis Related to IP Where Applicable
From the Paper "The guides existing to allow action that is effective in prevention of infringement state the "the requirement procedures permit 'effective action' speaks to all possible remedies, including civil, administrative and criminal procedures, as well as border measures, customs, tax and communication procedures." Copyright law in countries of optical media product export has proved ineffective in terms of media licensing and "countries have adopted optical media licensing regimes." TRIPS has as an obligation the provision of "effective actions" of infringement upon rights under this Article. It is held that Article 41 when combined with 61 (assumed to be understood as subsumed within the requirements of Article 41" make it a further requirement o countries to make the provision of any remedies "available" and not limited to those that are only within the law. Article 61 obliges countries to make the provision of criminal procedures and penalties "at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright privacy.""
Addresses the question whether the patent for the cloning process, currently awaiting approval in the U.S. patent office, covers human cloning in its definition.
Abstract This paper discusses whether the cloning procedure can be patented. The arguments of those who claim that current patent law may include humans, and those opposing this claim, are presented. The legal issues facing the U.S. Patent and Trade Office are outlined.
From the Paper "An article published in the New York Times, on May 17, 2002, entitled "Debate on Human Cloning Turns to Patents" presents both sides of an issue raised over whether a patent request, currently in the US patent office, covers human cloning in its definition. The article presents both sides of the issue. The author himself takes no position, but only presents the arguments presented on both sides of the issue. Neither side presents a clear, well supported, independent argument or dependent argument. They both rely on pseudoarguments to make their appeals.
The two opposing positions can be summarized as follows. The pro-cloning patent side, who coincidentally are the inventors of the procedure in question, argue that they wish to hold the patent so that no one actually uses it for humans. Currently the procedure is only being used for pigs (Pollack, 2002). . They argue the fine points of the language, in that it covers all "mammals" and humans are mammals. Their logic is that if the patent covers mammals, and humans are mammals, then the patent covers humans. This is a dependent argument, but is not clearly supported. Previous patents on cloning specifically excluded cloning humans, this one did not. It specifically mentions the use of human eggs."
Abstract This paper explores the history of federal patent law from the position that the patent office has helped to encourage ingenuity as much as it has helped to protect the rights and the property of the inventor. Through addressing the history of the patent office, it is shown that the very act of patenting has helped in promoting new concepts and the creation and execution of new products.
The paper discusses two main aspects of intellectual property rights; trademark infringements and patent infringements. An overview, case study and conclusion is given for each topic.
Abstract There are two main topics in this paper dealing with intellectual property rights; trademark infringements and patent infringements. The paper provides an overview of each topic including case law and a conclusion for each section. The paper reaches the conclusion that the patent protection and infringement process is substantially more complex than that of the trademark infringement violation.
Outline:
Trademark Infringement
Overview
Case Law
Conclusions
Patent Infringement
Overview
Case Law
Conclusions
From the Paper "Essentially, infringement of a patent occurs if one's protected item or process was sold or used without permission and/or compensation in any country where a patent has been granted to a party. This applies to Canada as well as any other country. Obviously no patent protections will be provided in a market in which a patent has either not been applied for or where the patent process does not exist in any mature form."
Abstract Every since Watson and Crick discovered DNA's structure in 1953 there has been a mad rush to discover it's function. The paper explores the discovery of scientist J. Craig Venter, whose groundbreaking system is responsible for locating and sequencing 85-90 percent of all human genes. Venter's discovery led to the National Institute of Health patenting gene fragments and the paper examines the controversy surrounding the issue. It discusses whether DNA, part of the human genome, should be allowed to be patented and also, how the information should be used. The paper also looks at the benefits of making DNA sequencing public property.
From the Paper "A major concern for many is how new DNA technology can be used against them. In a world full of real or imagined discrimination, genetic discrimination is a looming threat. Nineteen states now have laws governing privacy of genetic tests. Still, 25 percent of the individuals participating in a study at Georgetown University believed they had been discriminated against (Sternberg, 1996). Many Americans may be reason to fear, including those who themselves discriminate. More that 15 million Americans have one or more birth defects, 80 percent of them genetically caused (Cary, 1995). There are diseases numbering greater than 3,000 that are genetically coded (Platt, 1997). Discrimination may be on the job or by insurance companies who refuse to cover an individual based on a pre-existing condition. Martha Volner of the Alliance of Genetic Support Groups feels insurance companies do not need genetic information to discriminate. Enough history both personal and family is given to the insurance agency to negate the use of genetic tests (Sternberg, 1996)."
Abstract This paper explains that the corporate patenting of life forms is not only unethical, but that is not very practical, in legal or other business-oriented terms. In fact, a most interesting aspect of preparing this paper has been finding strong opposition to the patenting of life-forms that is expressed by widely different sources of opinion. This development is opposed on different grounds that range from the practical and the profit-minded, to the ethical and religious.
Abstract This paper explains that, while the legal debates over trade-mark and patent infringement remedies are analogous because both involve some infringement of intellectual properties, clear similarities and differences exist between these two areas of litigation. The author points out that a comparison and contrast of the remedies available in cases of trade-mark and patent infringement suggest that they often differ not so much in the general remedies themselves but in the particulars of their implementation. The paper argues that the belief that remedies are to be treated more as an afterthought than an independent area of study is no longer possible or desirable in the contemporary context.
Table of Contents:
Comparison and Contrast
Reflections
From the Paper "These Anton Piller orders represent a significant difference between remedies for trade-mark and patent infringement as they reflect how the phenomenon of piracy has developed and evolved in recent years. In such examples, the piracy of intellectual property has no clear analogue in the area of patent infringement. The counterfeiting of products and the deliberate infringement upon trade-marks in order to pass a product off as the work of a previously existing company/organization with a registered trade-mark is a phenomenon of increasing concern today."
Compares the United States duty of candor and good faith set forth in Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations to sections 45(3) and 101D of the Australian Patents Act (1990).
Abstract The paper analyzes and compares the consequences of failing to satisfy the duty of disclosure, candor and good faith at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in particular as it applies in relation to the filing of information disclosure statements, to the consequence for failing to notify search results to IP Australia.
Outline:
Australian Patents Act (1990) - Sections 45(3), 101D and 102(2C)
Comparison
From the Paper "In order to establish a case of fraud, it must be shown that there existed an element of wilful, wrongful conduct, or wrongful intent before the Patent & Trademark Office, and that the wrongful conduct or intent attempted to impair, or actually impaired, the Patent & Trademark Office's ability to perform its statutory function . On the other hand, the lesser charge of inequitable conduct is established by showing that the information withheld was material, and that the misrepresentation was intentional ."
Abstract Advances in molecular biology and genetic engineering have made it possible to design, develop and create new life forms. Various life forms of this nature have been patented and the practice continues to expand. This paper examines the implications of two popular applications for genetically modified organisms (GMOs): agriculture and human gene therapy.
Abstract Advances in molecular biology and genetic engineering have made it possible to design, develop and create new life forms. Various life forms of this nature have been patented and the practice continues to expand. This paper examines the implications of two popular applications for genetically modified organisms (GMOs): agriculture and human gene therapy. It demonstrates that the free market or capitalist model is not ethically the most appropriate method of developing and introducing GMOs.
