Patenting Inventions in the Field of Biology and Chemistry: German and European Patent Law and Case Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 84 (10) ◽  
pp. 431-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Vossius
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (9) ◽  
pp. 918-924
Author(s):  
Martin Stierle

Abstract This paper will focus on the issue of designating artificial intelligence systems as inventors in the current framework of European patent law. Most recently, the European Patent Office rejected two patent applications which indicated a machine called DABUS as the inventor of the claimed subject-matter. The paper will analyse the grounds of the decisions in detail, thereby reflecting on the current approach of the European Patent Office to such designations and on the concept of inventorship within the European patent system in general.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Ackermann

Abstract In the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), increasing importance is being attached to the concept of ‘plausibility’, which, however, has no literal basis in the EPC. Nevertheless, many decisions in which inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) is assessed address the question of whether the claimed solution was at least ‘plausible’ at the effective date. For medical use claims, a ‘plausibility test’ is even performed for assessing sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83 EPC). Starting from this example, the following article shows why German patent law does not need ‘plausibility’.


Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright

Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology is the established and highly-acclaimed introduction to patent law and practice, guiding the reader through the legal and procedural complexities of the British, European, Japanese, and United States patent systems. It explains in detail the role of patent practitioners, both in private practice and in-house, in maximising the commercial potential of their company's or client's products. The eagerly awaited new sixth edition of this highly respected text has been fully revised and updated to discuss major new developments in patent law, patent aspects of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), developments in the area of competition law and patents, and all relevant case law of the US, UK, and the European Patent Office (EPO). This is a comprehensive and invaluable guide to this rapidly developing and increasingly globalised area of law, providing a full description of the techniques and industry know-how that underlie successful patent practice and portfolio management.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-542
Author(s):  
Aisling McMahon

AbstractThis article focuses primarily on to what extent novel beings, and particularly, beings which display something akin to human consciousness or agency would be (or should be) patentable under current European patent law. Patents grant the patent holder a right to exclude others from using the patented invention for the period of patent grant (usually 20 years). This allows the patent holder to control how that invention can or cannot be used by others downstream, granting patent holders a governance like function over the patented technology for the duration of the patent. Accordingly, the potential for patentability of novel beings gives rise to a myriad of ethical issues including: to what extent is it appropriate for patent holders to retain and exercise patents over “novel beings”; how issues of “agency” displayed by any “novel beings” would fit within the current patent framework, if at all; and to what extent existing exclusions from patentability might exclude patents on “novel beings” or whether changes within patent law may be needed if patents in relation to “novel beings” are deemed ethically problematic. This article focuses on such issues, and in doing so, also sheds light on the role of ethical issues within the patenting of advanced biotechnologies more generally.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley

In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court declined calls to categoricallyexclude business methods - or any technology - from the patent law. It alsorejected as the sole test of subject matter eligibility the FederalCircuit’s deeply-flawed "machine or transformation" test, under which noprocess is patentable unless it is tied to a particular machine ortransforms an article to another state or thing. Subsequent developmentsthreaten to undo that holding, however. Relying on the Court’s descriptionof the Federal Circuit test as a "useful and important clue', the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office, patent litigants, and district courts have allcontinued to rely on the machine-or-transformation test in the wake ofBilski: no longer as the sole rule, but as a presumptive starting pointthat threatens to effectively become mandatory. In this Article, we suggesta new way to understand the exclusion of abstract ideas from patentablesubject matter. No class of invention is inherently too abstract forpatenting. Rather, the rule against patenting abstract ideas is an effortto prevent inventors from claiming their ideas too broadly. By requiringthat patent claims be limited to a specific set of practical applicationsof an idea, the abstract ideas doctrine both makes the scope of theresulting patent clearer and leaves room for subsequent inventors toimprove upon - and patent new applications of - the same basic principle.Recasting the abstract ideas doctrine as an overclaiming test eliminatesthe constraints of the artificial machine-or-transformation test, as wellas the pointless effort to fit inventions into permissible or impermissiblecategories. It also helps understand some otherwise-inexplicabledistinctions in the case law. Testing for overclaiming allows courts tofocus on what really matters: whether the scope of the patentee's claimsare commensurate with the invention’s practical, real-world contribution.This inquiry, we suggest, is the touchstone of the abstract ideas analysis,and the way out of the post-Bilski confusion.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-242
Author(s):  
Muriel Lightbourne

Recent developments in the field of European law, in relation to subject-matter consisting of living material, raise a string of basic issues as to the legal qualification of certain techniques used in agriculture and medicine, such as CRISPR-Cas9, and regarding their appraisal under European patent law. The present article reviews a series of decisions, including the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-528/16, the decision issued on 7 February 2020 by the French Council of State and the Opinion of the European Patent Office Enlarged Board of Appeal of 14 May 2020 on Referral G 3/19.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-87
Author(s):  
Zein J. Razem ◽  
Qais Ali Mahafzah

AbstractAttempts to harmonize patent laws worldwide have increased, leaving bits of argumentative issues untouched in the patent systems under scrutiny. However, diversity can sometimes prove desirable since majority rule is not always right and the minority wrong. Sometimes a part is more righteous than the whole. This research focuses on areas where the Jordan Patents of Invention Law, United States Patent Law, and the European Patent Convention intersect. It concludes that although most countries, including Jordan, follow a different path than that taken by the United States, it may be unnecessary for the United States to change its system in order to be in sync with the rest of the world. Thus, it may prove advantageous to have two separate systems that can provide different patent protections where humanity achieves progression and development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document