Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2007. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on October 15, 2007) Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Intellectual property protection in the form of secured patents has played an integral role in the growth and advancement of the biotechnology industry. The protection of intellectual properties is considered very important asset in this evolving industry. As a result, patent disputes often end up in the courts with long lasting consequences. Here we examined two recent and highly publicized patent dispute cases, namely, Mayo Collaborative Services et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) and Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics (2011), and wish to assess how the rulings will impact diagnostics and personalized medicine industries. In doing so, we learned that decisions involving patents are complex and interconnected, with previous court rulings influencing subsequent cases. It also became clear that in general, the biotechnology industry favored patent protection while healthcare providers and their patients favored less stringent patent protection. The case is made by the biotechnology industry that the current system has allowed both the diagnostics and personalized medicine industries to flourish. Patents are a crucial incentive that not only promotes but also protects innovation. Any disruption on the legal front with regards to patents will have a negative effect. On the other hand, healthcare providers and their patients voiced their concerns that the current system limits the affordability and accessibility of healthcare. Patent protected drugs are often expensive, making it difficult for some patients to afford. In addition, these drugs have no generic counterparts and are often without alternatives, limiting their accessibility. The providers and their patients argue that relaxing the current regulations is needed and that doing so will not impact innovation. It is believed that increased competition will have a two-fold effect—driving down prices and forcing innovation as a means of differentiation. In the end, the decisions themselves have provided little guidance regarding how the biotechnology industry should proceed, but this much is clear—a balance needs to be struck between the two opposing viewpoints for the biotech industry to survive and continue to grow.

This thesis analyses the supra-national application of the morality provisions in the ‘European’ patent system by the judicial/quasi-judicial decision-making in the European Union (“EU”) and European Patent Organisation (“EPOrg”). In doing so, it focuses specifically on Article 53 of the European Patent Convention and Article 6 of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, with particular reference to the overlapping institutional matrix within which these legislative provisions are applied. The intended contribution of this research is in relation to how these decision-making entities of the EPOrg and the EU interpret and apply the morality provisions in the ‘European’ patent system as a feature of their operation as institutions. The research investigates specifically: to what extent and in what ways does an analysis of the institutional framework for the application of the morality provisions by the various institutions implicated in the ‘European’ patent system reveal new insights into the current position and suggest defensible approaches to the future development of these provisions. This has particular relevance in the current context, in light of the developing unitary patent scheme examined through an institutional lens in chapter six. Importantly, the contribution of this research will not be in relation to the specific principles or tests which should be used in applying the morality provisions per se in the ‘European’ patent system, nor does it seek to contribute specifically to the normative questions in relation to what morality should mean in this context or whether the morality provisions should exist within the patent system. Such matters have been explored extensively in the literature. Instead, this thesis uses doctrinal methods to build a theoretical framework by drawing specifically on institutional theories within law and sociology, which are used to devise a novel framework for assessing institutional influences on decision-makers. This framework is then applied to the EPOrg and EU with the aim of demonstrating the differing institutional pulls on each body in their application of the morality provisions, which is used as a single exemplar to achieve this kind of institutional analysis. The overall aim of this research is to contribute to an understanding of decision-making in this specific context by reference to understandings of how institutional contexts can have profound effects upon the end outcomes of decision-making. This reveals a hitherto un-exposed perspective not only on what is happening within patent law with respect to the morality provisions, but also novel insights that may help to explain the legal landscape that has emerged, and which can inform its future development.

No description available.

South Africa is a biologically diverse but technologically less advanced economy. Like many other developing countries in the world, its biodiversity is exposed to danger due to certain human activities. Among these, patents are charged as the easiest routing for misappropriation of indigenous biological resources and traditional knowledge associated therewith. Being member of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, South Africa is under obligation to ensure that its patent system supports the Convention's objectives including biodiversity conservation and sustainable use rather than its destruction and decline. The purpose of this dissertation is not only to dilute this misconception about South African patent system but to prove that with an access and benefit sharing mechanism it is an effective tool for biodiversity conservation, capacity-building and industrial development in the country. To make the system more protective of the rights of the indigenous communities, various modifications have also been proposed in the existing stature of the Act.

The most important rights, which state such a balance between these two parties, are the rights of intellectual property. Thus, an important question is to what extent 3D-printing conflicts with intellectual property rights. In general, intellectual property balances the rights between the owners of genuine products and their use through third parties. On the one hand the intellectual property rights give exclusive rights to the genuine owners, on the other hand they give as well some important exceptions for the use of third parts material. Hence, the purpose of this work is to examine, which intellectual property rights are affected by the production of a 3D-printed object. In each of the following chapters I will look at the different categories of intellectual property rights. I will examine in how far the creators of a CAD, the uploaders who upload a CAD on a website for a free or commercial download, the website owners who facilitate that uploads and the printers, whether private or with a commercial purpose, may be in conflict with any intellectual property rights. The most important intellectual property rights, which could be affected, are copyright, patents, registered designs, trade marks and passing off. For the present investigation it will be necessary to have a closer look at the different steps of the developing process of a 3D-printed product. More precisely, we have to differentiate between the creation of the CAD, the uploading of a CAD and finally the home-printing or the printing on demand through a specialised company. The aim of this work is to show how these single steps conflict with intellectual property rights and how the different actors in this process are liable for any infringing activity and in how far their activity is covered by any exception. Furthermore, we will also examine whether current legislation and jurisdiction appropriately address issues brought about by this new technology. Because of the reason, that the issue of 3D-printing in relation to intellectual property is quite a new one, this work will occasionally have a look abroad to other jurisdiction how they already dealt with similar problems. With this in mind, especially the US, European and German jurisdiction and laws will be regarded.

Lawyers and businessmen work closely together every day. Despite the increasing value of patents and trademarks for companies, it is important to keep in mind that Intellectual Property law and contractual law provide for much more types of protection than statutory rights (patents, trademarks, copyright). Business and company developments are no longer linear. Flexibility plays a key role in the journey a company has to travel to reach success, especially in the case of entrepreneurs and sole proprietorship companies. New businesses going through the "death valley"1 will need to be as flexible as possible to succeed. It is only fair for their attorneys to meet such flexibility standard. For these purposes, understanding different industries, stages of business developments, and Intellectual Property contractual and statutory rights becomes an essential matter to properly asses which kind of protection should and can be used for a particular scenario, on a specific time and on a limited budget. In general terms, Intellectual Property literature presents different types of Intellectual Property management schemes making use of patents, trademarks, design models, copyright, etc. individually considered and mainly referring to statutory or agency granted rights. These mainly and usually refer to case law and /or jurisprudence (as applicable) and international conventions. However, despite the ever increasing number of articles addressing each of these rights, little reference is made to their strategic use within the context of a specific company's business development stage or business needs they are aiming to protect. When reflecting on success cases, not many details are published regarding the "partnership agreements", "employment contracts", "services agreement" entered into by a company, or the Intellectual Property policies implemented by it while developing its business. On the other hand, when addressing the Intellectual Property portfolio, authors seem to refer to patents, trademarks and copyright as the big (or even core) concerns. Consequently, what matters should an entrepreneur identify and address from an Intellectual Property standpoint when starting a business? The most common answer has been: I am just starting and not anywhere near to a patent, so that is not for me. Each Intellectual Property statutory right functions independently, notwithstanding the possibility of using a combination of them. However, these rights can be used for more than one purpose. This dissertation describes the legally granted privileges (focused on patents, trademarks, copyright) and the role these play, just as one of the tools entrepreneurs have to protect their Intellectual Property business. It describes and explains other available contracting tools as part of a comprehensive Intellectual Property protection and business development strategy.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Michigan, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 237-253).

This thesis examines the balance between copyright owners and users by studying the nature of the rights and exceptions related to transmission of copyrighted works over the internet, focusing on three different jurisdictions: Australia, Japan and the United States.The choice of Japan and the United States is based on consideration of the following elements: 1. Both countries possess advanced information technology; 2. Both countries too the lead in legislating for copyright protection in the digital environment; 3. Both countries have different legal systems. In the matter of statutory reaction of transmission of works over the internet, there is no uniform solution around the world as the divergent laws in the three chosen countries demonstrate.