Inaug.-Diss.-- Frankfurt am Main. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 6-29).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Köln.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen.

No description available.

Thesis (doctoral)--Philipp-Universität zu Marburg.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Köln.

Thesis (M.A.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 70-73). Also available via the Internet.

La Convention sur la diversité biologique (CDB, 1992) a établi pour la première fois en droit international un système d’accès aux ressources génétiques (RG) et du partage des avantages qui découlent de leur utilisation (système d’APA). Ce système se base sur la reconnaissance de la souveraineté des États sur leurs ressources naturelles, censée leur permettre d’en contrôler l’utilisation et bénéficier des avantages qui en découlent. La Convention se présentait alors comme un acquis pour les pays du Sud, principaux fournisseurs des RG et par conséquent principaux bénéficiaires de ce système. Deux ans après la conclusion de la CDB, l’Accord sur les aspects de la propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (l’Accord) a été conclu sous l’égide de l'OMC. Sous l’influence des pays du Nord, cet Accord étend le champ de la brevetabilité à toutes technologies, y compris celles qui étaient auparavant exclues de ce champ par de nombreux pays, notamment du Sud. Les biotechnologies sont les principales technologies visées par cette obligation. À cet égard les pays du Sud ont exprimé leur réticence en considérant que l’ADPIC n’est pas adapté aux exigences du système d’APA de la CDB puisqu’il permet la brevetabilité des RG qui sont à la base des biotechnologies sans prendre en considération ces exigences. Ces pays ont en outre estimé que l’Accord risque de compromettre la mise œuvre de ce système. Dès lors les deux textes se sont retrouvés au centre d’un réel débat, entre les pays du Sud et les pays du Nord que ce soit pour condamner leur incompatibilité ou pour défendre leur synergie. Un débat qui révèle un réel clivage Nord/Sud autour de nombreuses questions. / The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), concluded in 1992, has established for the first time in international law a genetic resources (GR) regime on access and benefits sharing arising from their use (ABS system). This system is based on the recognition of the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, supposed allow them the control of their use and reaping the associated benefits. Therefore, the Convention was presented as a gain for South’s countries, the main suppliers of GR and therefore the main beneficiaries of this system. Two years after the conclusion of the CBD, the Agreement on Trade Related aspect of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) was concluded under the aegis of the World Trade Organization (WTO.) Under the influence of North’s countries concerned to shape the international patent system on their own model, this Agreement extend the patentability scope to all technologies, including those which were excluded from this scope by many countries, especially in South. Biotechnologies are the most concerned by this obligation. In this regard, South’s countries have expressed reluctance, considering that TRIPS is not adapted to the requirements of the ABS system of CBD since it allows the patentability of GR which are the base of biotechnologies without regard to these requirements. These countries, moreover, considered that the Agreement could compromise the implementation of this system. Therefore, the two texts found themselves at the center of a real debate between the South and the North whether to denounce their incompatibility or support their synergy. A debate that exposes a real North/South division on numerous question.

The major advances in the identification of the human genome that took place from the early 1990s onwards triggered a significant increase in the number of patent applications concerning newly discovered human gene sequences that nevertheless failed to disclose the function of the isolated material, and thus did not meet the patent law requirement of industrial application. In order to address this issue the 1998 Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (Biotech Directive) 1 required patent applicants to disclose the industrial applicability of inventions covering human gene sequences and related proteins at the time of the patent application. Furthermore, the Biotech Directive established functionality-related protection for all types of genetic inventions, thus restricting the scope of protection granted to human genetic inventions to their ability to perform the industrial application disclosed by the applicant. This thesis analyses the implications of the Biotech Directive's approach towards the industrial application of human genes and fragments thereof in respect of three issues: the assessment of the industrial applicability of inventions concerning sequences or partial sequences of human genes; the distinction between discoveries and patentable inventions when the claimed subject matter is human genetic material; and the determination of the scope of protection awarded to patents over genetic information. The thesis argues that the requirement of industrial application can act as an efficient checkpoint for preventing the grant of patents over human genetic discoveries of no practical benefit to society, but also for impeding the issuance of overly broad patents in this field. At the same time, a strict interpretation of this requirement does not imply that patent authorities will systematically overlook the interests of private firms, but it is intended to set a realistic standard that serves to avoid the rise of undue barriers in the pursuit of research and innovation in this industry.