题名

美國生物科技新專利適格性原則之研究

并列篇名

A Study on the Biotechnological New Patent Eligibility Doctrine under U.S.

作者

李順典(Shun-Tien, Lee)

关键词

生物技術 ； 專利適格性 ； 削弱 ； 創新 ； 策略 ； Biotechnology ； Patent Eligibility ； Undermine ； Innovation ； Strategies

期刊名称

中正財經法學

卷期/出版年月

21期（2020 / 07 / 01）

页次

97 - 160

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

鑑於美國最高法院重新激活了專利適格性標的要件，其認為涉及發明的自然法則、自然現象或抽象概念，除非它們也包含「發明的概念」，否則不具專利適格性，因而引發了巨大爭議。因為新專利適格性原則不當削弱了美國在創新中的領導地位，而且它們已經給美國專利制度注入了巨大的法律不確定性，所以美國應重新思考生物技術產業創新的激勵措施生物技術公司的專利適格性在不同的國家面臨不斷的改變，故必須發展保護生物技術創新的全球策略，可行的發展策略應是根據國家的法律標準申請專利。
英文摘要

In view of the United States Supreme Court has reinvigorated the patent-eligible subject matter requirement, holding that inventions directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting unless they also contain an ＂inventive concept.＂ As a result, the Supreme Court has sparked tremendous controversy. Since the new patent eligibility doctrine is undermining U.S. leadership in innovation, so the U.S. shall reconsider the incentives for innovation in the biotechnologyindustry. Biotech companies facing constant changes in patent eligibility in different countries have to develop global strategies for protecting biotechnology innovations, and a recommended strategy is to file patent applications tailored to the legal standards of the countries of interest.
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. Ariosa’s prenatal test gains crucial New York lab licensing certification, FIERCEDIAGNOSTICS (Feb. 14, 2014), 1, athttp://www.fiercediagnostics.com/story/ariosas-prenatal-test-gains-crucial-new-york-lab-licensing-certification/2014-02-14, last visited on Feb. 21, 2020.
  2. Press Release, Biotechnology Indus. Org., Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Review of Isolated DNA Patents (Jun. 13, 2013), BIOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ORGANIZATION (BIO), 1, at http://www.bio.org/media/press-release/statement-us-supreme-court-review-isolated-dna-patents, last visited on Feb. 21, 2020.
  3. Christopher Lee, Slump in NIH Funding Is Taking Toll on Research, WASH. POST (May 28, 2007), at http://www.washingtonpost.com /wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052700794.html, last visited on Mar. 31, 2020.
  4. Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Finalizes Settlement in Google Motorola Mobility Case, FDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 1, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/07/ftc-finalizes-settlement-google-motorola-mobility-case, last visited on Dec. 03, 2019.
  5. Adams, Christopher P.,Brantner, Van V.(2006).Estimating The Cost Of New Drug Development: Is It Really $ 802 Million?.HEALTH AFFAIRS,25,420.
  6. Allison, John R.,Lemley, Mark A.,Schwartz, David L.(2014).Understanding the Realities of Modern Patent Litigation.TEXAS L. REV.,92,1769.
  7. Andrews, Lori B.(2002).Genes and Patent Policy: Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights.NATURE REVS. GENETICS,3,803.
  8. ANDREWS, LORI B.,MAXWELL, J.,ROTHSTEIN, MARK A.(2010).ROTHSTEIN, GENETICS: ETHICS,LAW AND POLICY.Thomson Reuters Business Press.
  9. Natalie Angier, Fierce Competition Marked Fervid Race for Cancer Gene, N.Y. TIMES, 1, at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/20/science/fierce-competition-marked-fervid-race-for-cancer-gene.html?pagewanted=all, last visited on Dec. 04, 2019.
  10. Beauchamp, Christopher(2013).Patenting Nature: A Problem of History.STAN. TECH. L. REV.,16,257.
  11. Borson, D. B.(1994).The Human Genome Projects: Patenting Human Genes and Biotechnology. Is the Human Genome Patentable?.IDEA,35(4),3.
  12. BOUCHOUX, DEBORAH E.(2009).INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS, PATENTSAND TRADE SECRETS.Delmar Publisher.
  13. Burk, Dan L.,Lemley, Mark A.(2003).Policy Levers in Patent Law.VA. L.REV.,89,1575.
  14. Steven Callahan, Alice: The Death of Software-Related Patents?, N. DIST. TEX. BLOG, 1, at http://www.ndtexblog.com/?p=3550, last visited on Dec. 6, 2019.
  15. Carrier, Michael A.(2002).Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox.U. PA.L. REV.,150,761.
  16. Dolan, Gregory(2013).Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials.98 Iowa L,98,1399.
  17. Eisenberg, Rebecca S.(2000).Re-Examining the Role of Patents in Appropriating the Value of DNA Sequences.EMORY,49,783.
  18. Eisenberg, Rebecca S.(2012).Wisdom of the Ages or Dead-Hand Control? Patentable Subject Matter for Diagnostic Methods After In Re Bilski.CASE W. RES. J. L. TECH. & INTERNET,3,1.
  19. Evans, Barbara(2014).Economic Regulation of Next Generation Sequencing.MED. & ETHICS J. L.,42,51.
  20. Feldman, Robin,Nicholson Price II, W.(2014).Patent Trolling - Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals Are at Risk.STAN. TECH. L. REV.,2,773-805.
  21. Rana Foroohar, A Better US Patent System Will Spur Innovation, FINANCIAL TIMES, 1, at https://www.ft.com/content/74114a6c-8f28- 11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93?mhq5j=e6, last visited on Dec.06, 2019.
  22. Ashley Gold et al., Lee Staying on as Patent Chief Under Trump Administration, POLITICO, 1, at http://www.politico.com/blogs/ donald-trump-administration/2017/01/michelle-lee-patent-office-chief-tostay-on-233847, last visited on Dec. 03, 2019.
  23. Golden, John(2001).Biotechnology, Technology Policy, and Patentability: Natural Products and Invention in the American System.EMORY L. J.,50,101.
  24. Gugliuzza, Paul R.(2019).The Procedure of Patent Eligibility.TEXAS L. REV.,97,571.
  25. Gugliuzza, Paul R.,Lemley, Mark A.(2018).Can a Court Change the Law by Saying Nothing?.VAND. L. REV.,71,765.
  26. Heller, Michael A.,Eisenberg, Rebecca S.(1998).Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research.SCIENCE L. REV.,280,698.
  27. Kane, Eileen M.(2011).Patenting Genes and Genetic Methods: What's at Stake?.J. BUS. TECH. L.,6,1.
  28. LANDES WILLIAM, M.,POSNER, RICHARD A.(2003).THE ECONOMIC STRUCTUREOF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW.Thomson Reuters Business Press.
  29. Leader, Benjamin(2008).Protein Therapeutics: a Summary and Pharmacological Classification.NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY,7,21.
  30. Lefstin, Jeffrey A.,Menell, Peter S.,Taylor, David O.(2018).Final Report of the Berkeley Center for Law & .Technology Section 101 Workshop: Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenges.BERKELEY TECH. L. J.,33,549.
  31. Lemley, Mark A.(2011).Life After Bilski.STAN. L. REV.,63,1315.
  32. Mack, Susan J.(2014).Susan J. Mack, New Political and Regulatory Issues Complicate Protecting Biotechnology Intellectual Property, 7247053 ASPATORE WL 1 (2014)..
  33. Madigan, Kevin,Mossoff, Adam(2017).Turning Gold into Lead: How Patent Eligibility Doctrine Is Undermining U.S. Leadership in Innovation.GEO. MASON L. REV.,24,939.
  34. MARGARET, LLEWELYN,ADCOCK, MIKE(2006).EUROPEAN PLANT INTELLECTURAL PROPERTY.Hart Publisher.
  35. Merges, Robert P.(1999).As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform.BERKELEY TECH. L. J.,14,577.
  36. MERGES, ROBERT PATRICK,DUFFY, JOHN FITZGERALD(2017).PATENT LAWAND POLICY: CASES AND MATERIALS.Delmar Publisher.
  37. Milunsky, Aubrey(1993).The New Genetics: From Research to Reality.SUFFOLK U,7,1307.
  38. Nicholson Price II, W.(2015).Black-Box Medicine.HARV. J. L. & TECH.,28,419.
  39. Noorani, H. Z.(1996).Cost Comparison of Molecular Versus Conventional Screening of Relatives at Risk for Retinoblastoma.AM. J. HUMAN GENETICS,59,302.
  40. Peace, N.,Christie, A.(1986).Intellectual Property Protection for the Products of Animal Breeding.EIPR.,4,219.
  41. Robert Plotkin, Software Patents are Only as Dead as Schrödinger’s Cat, IPWATCHDOG, 1, at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/10/06/software-patents-are-only-as-dead-as-schrodingers-cat, last visited on Dec. 05, 2019.
  42. Gene Quinn, Scotus Rules Alice Software Claims Patent Ineligible, IPWATCHDOG, 1, at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/06/19/scotus-rules-alice-software-claims-patent-ineligible, last visited on Dec.05, 2019.
  43. Rai, Arti Kaur(1999).Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science.NW. U. L. REV.,94,77.
  44. Raj,Sherkow(2016).The Changing Life Science Patent Landscape.NATURE BIOTECH,34,292.
  45. Risch, Michael(2008).Everything is Patentable.TENN. L. REV.,75,591.
  46. Robinson, Douglas,Medlock, Nina(2005).Diamond v. Chakrabarty: A Retrospective on 25 Years of Biotech Patents.INTELL. PROP. & TECH.L. J.,17,12.
  47. Robert R. Sachs, The One Year Anniversary: The Aftermath of Alice Strom, BILSKI BLOG, 1, at http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2015/06/ the-one-year-anniversary-the-aftermath-of-alicestorm.html, last visited on Dec. 4, 2019.
  48. Robert R. Sachs, alicestormupdateforq1 2017, BILSKIBLO..html, last visited on Dec. 6, 2019.
  49. Sanger, Frederick(1977).DNA Sequencing With Chain-Terminating Inhibitors.PROC. NAT’L ACAD. SCI. U.S.,74,5463.
  50. Sigareva, Marina A.,O'Donnell, Ryan W.(2017).Global Strategies for Protecting Inventions in the Biotechnology Sector.NEW JERS,307,60.
  51. Sikora, Mike(2018).Mayo, Myriad, and a Muddled Analysis: Do Recent Changes to the Patentable Subject Matter Doctrine Threaten Patent Protections for Epigenetics-based Inventions?.MINN. L. REV.,102,2229.
  52. Sikora, Mike(2018).Mayo, Myriad, and a Muddled Analysis: Do Recent Changes to the Patentable Subject Matter Doctrine Threaten Patent Protections for Epigenetics-based Inventions?.MINN. L. REV.,102,2229+2230-2233.
  53. Strandburg, Katherine J.(2012).Much Ado About Preemption.HOUS. L. REV.,50,563.
  54. Tudhope, Nicole(2018).Misunderstanding Biotehnology: Separating Laws of Nature From Underlying Technological Developments.WILLAMETTE L.REV.,54,587.
  55. Daniel A. Tysver, Are Software and Business Methods Still Patentable After the Bilski ecisions?, BITLAW, 1, at http://www.bitlaw.com/ software-patent/bilski-and-software-patents.html, last visited on Dec. 04, 2019.
  56. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Comments of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (2017), at https://www.uspto.gov sites/default/files/documents/RT2%20Comments%20PhRMA.pdf, last visited on Mar. 31, 2020.
  57. Van Gieson, Edward,Stellman, Paul(2010).Killing Good Patents to Wipe out Bad Patents: Bilski, the Evolution of Patentable Subject Matter Rules, and the Inability to Save Valuable Patents Using the Reissue Statute.SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L. J.,27,403.
  58. WESTERLUND, LI(2002).BIOTECH PATENTS EQUIVALENCE AND EXCLUSIONSUNDER EUROPEAN AND US PATENT LAW.Kluwer Law International Publisher.
  59. Yarbrough, Daniel K.(2017).After Myriad: Reconsidering the Incentives for Innovationin the Biotechnology Industry.MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L.REV.,21,141.
print cancel