No description available.

基因攜帶人類遺傳資訊，基因檢測於現今醫藥發展趨於個人化醫療的走向極具發展性，開發用於體外診斷試劑、藥物伴隨檢測等，準醫療計畫宣布後更使其成為醫療生技產業中的重點開發項目。然Myriad案卻一反美國專利商標局數十年給予基因專利的態度，認為分離和純化後的基因為天然產物，而不符合專利適格。 在1852年，最高法院在Le Roy v. Tatham案中勾勒出天然產物不符合專利適格的雛形，由於自然的力量、抽象的概念及自然的產物不符合專利適格的原因除了是因為沒有人可以獨佔自然的力量，也因其會阻礙未來進步與發明。Myriad案中論述的過程當中，各級法院分別由分離及純化後的基因的分子特性以及分子化學結構的途徑來剖析基因是否落入自然產物的範圍而不符合專利適格。最終，美國最高法院由分子特性的角度出發，認為Myriad並沒有創造或更變任何BRCA1或BRCA2基因之遺傳資訊，而應獲得專利保護；相對的cDNA則因其係為mRNA逆轉錄而成的，仍可以獲得專利。然最高法院的論述卻忽略cDNA在特性上同樣攜帶遺傳資訊。然自然法則之外，最高法院的判決可能更加是因為為了要讓患者獲得第二檢測意見政策因素而做出傾向限縮基因專利的判斷。 在Myriad案後，從前以專利保護作為重要商業手段的基因檢測產業預計將會許多產業的變化。未來，低成本的基因檢測將使產業帶來轉變，更有利於精準醫療的發展。而廠商以檢測後的結果進行大數據分析為營利來源、改採取營業秘密方式保護等，應為可採納的因應方式。

No description available.

No description available.

美國最高法院於2013年6月13日，發佈自2010年起纏訟多年的 AMP v. USPTO & Myriad Genetics案判決，最高法院全體一致認為，與天然相同的DNA序列，即使經過單離（isolated）仍然不具有可專利性，但補償性的DNA（complementary DNA，簡稱cDNA），則為人為發明產物具有可專利性。 判決出來後，引發各界譁然，相關基因測試業者擔心，最高法院的見解，會使基因研發的投資意願大幅減少，反而會阻礙往後創新研發。但支持者認為基因本屬人類共有產物，且否准基因專利後，能夠讓其他更低價、更有效率的檢測方法進入市場，對社會有助益。在專利權人的私有利益與公共衛生利益激烈衝突下，各方都有鏗鏘有力的理由。 美國專利商標局（USPTO）從1980年代起，開始核發與基因有關之專利，並在2001年公布「實用性檢查指引」（Utility Examination Guidelines），認為單離的人類DNA或純化DNA分子，亦可賦予專利，透過賦予專利排他權，達鼓勵研發創新之目的。從過去三十年來，基因相關專利數量劇增，也因為專利排他的特性，對現有的科學研究產生阻礙，不僅如此，對於患者而言，因為專利權人積極行使權利，成為市場唯一壟斷者，使患者無法獲得其他醫療意見（second opinion）的權利，這也是Myriad案備受矚目的原因之一。 因此，本論文將藉由AMP v. USPTO & Myriad Genetics案，重新省思對於人體基因是否具有可專利性，並整理美國司法實務過往對於可專利標的、基因專利等重要判決進行分析，最後提出本文的見解，試圖提出一些可能的解決方案。

La thèse vise à examiner l’applicabilité des règles du droit de la concurrence, comme une solution alternative aux solutions existantes de la propriété intellectuelle dans le cas spécifique d'un de refus du titulaire d’un tel brevet. Sont étudiés: les solutions existantes, l'étendue de la protection conférée par un tel brevet, et si un tel refus du titulaire d’un brevet sur une séquence d’ADN est donc examiné en tant que pratique potentiellement répréhensible en vertu du droit de la concurrence. / Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

This thesis is the first full-length study of the English clergyman and historian William Cave (1637-1713). As one of a number of Restoration divines invested in exploring the lives and writings of the early Christians, Cave has nonetheless won only meagre interest from early-modernists in the past decade. Among his contemporaries and well into the nineteenth century Cave’s vernacular biographies of the Apostles and Church Fathers were widely read, but it was with the two volumes of his Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria (1688 and 1698), his life’s work, that he made his most important and lasting contribution to scholarship. The first aim of the thesis is therefore to build on a recent quickening of research into the innovative early-modern genre of historia literaria by exploring how, why, and with what help, in the context of late seventeenth-century European intellectual culture, Cave decided to write a work of literary history. To do so it makes extensive use of the handwritten drafts, annotations, notebooks, and letters that he left behind, giving a comprehensive account of his reading and scholarly practices from his student-days in 1650s Cambridge and then as a young clergyman in the 1660s to his final, unsuccessful attempts to publish a revised edition of his book at the end of his life. Cave’s motives, it finds, were multiple, complex, and sometimes conflicting: they developed in response to the immediate practical concerns of the post-Restoration Church of England even as they reflected some of the deeper-lying tensions of late humanist scholarship. The second reason for writing a thesis about Cave is that it makes it possible to reconsider an influential historiographical narrative about the origins of the ‘modern’ disciplinary category of literature. Since the 1970s the consensus among scholars has been that the nineteenth-century definition of literature as imaginative fictions in verse and prose – in other words literature as it is now taught in schools and universities – more or less completely replaced the early-modern notion of literature, literae, as learned books of all kinds. This view is challenged in the final section of this thesis, which traces the influence of Cave’s work on some of the canonical authors of the English literary tradition, including Johnson and Coleridge. Coleridge’s example, in particular, helps us to see why Cave and scholars like him were excluded lastingly from genealogies of English studies in the twentieth century, despite having given the discipline many of its characteristic concerns and aversions.