| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
094994
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Under article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents cannot be granted for "essentially biological processes" for the production of plants. Unlike the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, the EPC contains no provisions which protect farmers from claims of infringement and, thus, the grant of patents potentially constrain a farmer's normal acttions of planting and harvesting crops using legitimately acquired seed. In practice, interpretation of the exclusion of "essentially biological processes" raises a whole variety of problems, not least the question as to whether involvement by man or machine in a process will take that process out from the relam of the "essentially biological". From the travaux preparatories of the EPC, and from the use of the term "essentially", it is clear that involvement by man or machine is not in itself enough to deny patentability. In this article, we develop the argument that the timing of the involvement rather than its impact alone, is of critical importance. We also comment on two cases which are currently under consideration by the highest instance of the European Patent Office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
094997
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Nanotechnology is the technology that concerns itself with the smallest units of matter and promises manipulation of matter on the level of individual molecules. It is expected that vastly improved quality of many kinds of products will be the result. The patenting of nanotech inventions is well under way in Europe, but going down to the most elemental level raises new and important questions. For example, how does patenting at the nano level relate to similar technology on the super-nano level? Also fundamental questions can be asked, such as: should matter at all be patentable at the most elemental level? This article seeks to give a first overview of questions of law and regulation concerning the patentability of inventions in the field of nanotechnology under the European Patent Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
088913
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The current Brazilian industrial property law (Law 9279 of 14 May 1996) allows patents for pharmaceuticals, along with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights provisions. Since 1999, after an amendment in the legislation, two governmental authorities-the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) and the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)-have been concomitantly acting in the patent-granting procedures for pharmaceuticals. The INPI is the office usually responsible for the examination and granting of patents, and the ANVISA is the agency primarily responsible for the granting of marketing approval of drugs. In a peculiar situation, the two institutions have been responsible for the granting or denial of applications and have very often been divergent in their positions. The patentability of pharmaceutical inventions claiming second medical use is an example. The purpose of this work is to analyze the current situation of the Brazilian patent-granting system in the pharmaceutical field, with a special focus on the patentability of inventions claiming second medical use. It debates the two governmental positions and questions whether the existing conflicts are harmful to the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|