Natural Substances and Patentable Inventions

Demaine, Linda J.; Fellmeth, Aaron Xavier

doi:10.1126/science.1083367

Cited by 31 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There may be political and economic reasons why we might not want diagnostic tests for genetic diseases to be privately owned, but it is interesting that it is the utility requirement that is drawn upon here. Demaine & Fellmeth (2003) argue that merely being able to put the physiological function of a compound to use (even if it is what I have called a 'broader social use') is not adequate to get a patent. They think that an inventor should not be able to patent a substance as it is 'because most natural substances can be put to multiple human uses' (p. 1375), but should change it in some way.…”

Section: Different Types Of Utilitymentioning

confidence: 96%

Genomic patenting and the utility requirement

Calvert

2004

New Genetics and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses the ways in which genomic knowledge is portrayed as useful knowledge in gene patenting in order to fulfil the 'utility'/'industrial applicability' requirement for patentability. It gives examples of utility claims in gene patents and asks whether genomics (as opposed to genetics) changes our ideas about what is useful and what can be patented. It puts forward a provisional classification of different types of utility and argues that merely identifying the physiological function of a gene diverges radically from our commonsense understanding of what it is for an invention to be useful. Furthermore, social, political and ethical issues inevitably arise when discussing the utility requirement, because an invention cannot be useful in isolation from a social context.

show abstract

Section: Different Types Of Utilitymentioning

confidence: 96%

Genomic patenting and the utility requirement

Calvert

2004

New Genetics and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following this watershed ruling, any product of nature that is altered in some way is novel in the requisite sense and can be patented under U.S. law [10]. Thus inventions involving hESCs that have been derived from an embryo (i.e., purified and isolated) are patentable in the U.S. assuming the other criteria under the patent statute are met.…”

Section: Obtaining a Patentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Proliferating Patent Problems with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Herder

2006

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific challenges and ethical controversies facing human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research continue to command attention. The issues posed by patenting hESC technologies have, however, largely failed to penetrate the discourse, much less result in political action. This paper examines U.S. and European patent systems, illustrating discrepancies in the patentability of hESC technologies and identifying potential negative consequences associated with efforts to make available hESC research tools for basic research purposes while at same time strengthening the position of certain patent-holders' rights. Differences between the U.S. and the European contexts may in part explain why the course of hESC research in those jurisdictions ultimately diverges. Nevertheless, questions about whether and how patenting, related agreements, and licensing practices progress and shape the field of hESC research in both the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere must no longer be marginalised. These questions are fundamentally important in determining what benefits are likely to result from hESC research. Assuring these benefits is the moral issue with which patent systems are most intrinsically concerned, and that governments must begin to directly address rather than assume or ignore.

show abstract

“…Countries can, for example, deny patents to gene sequences, on the grounds that the technical step was a discovery of an existing entity, not an invention of something new (Demaine and Fellmeth, 2003). Most controversially, restrictive definitions of invention and discovery have been used to deny patents to computer software, under the argument that programmers are not inventing new processes but discovering (or, perhaps, revealing) underlying mathematical algorithms that are part of nature.…”

Section: Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy Space for Intellectual Property Management: Contrasting Multilateral and Regional-Bilateral Arrangements

Shadlen

2008

REUFF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Global governance in intellectual property (IP) has changed dramatically in the last two decades. What was once principally an instrument of national policy is now increasingly subject to international disciplines. I contrast the new restrictions placed on IP management that developing countries accept as parties to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) with the constraints they face as members of Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements (RBTAs) with the United States. I highlight the areas where countries retain opportunities for policy innovation despite their WTO obligations and provide examples of how some countries have introduced and retained measures that tailor IP management to local conditions and needs, all while meeting the new TRIPS obligations. Moreover, I show how these opportunities are circumscribed by RBTAs across all dimensions of patent policy, countries that are parties to such RBTAs have significantly less autonomy in their management of IP. In sum, the proliferation of RBTAs presents the greatest threat to countries' capacities to manage IP for development objectives.

show abstract

Natural Substances and Patentable Inventions

Cited by 31 publications

References 6 publications

Genomic patenting and the utility requirement

Genomic patenting and the utility requirement

Proliferating Patent Problems with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Policy Space for Intellectual Property Management: Contrasting Multilateral and Regional-Bilateral Arrangements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About