Univ., Diss.--St. Gallen, 2005.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität zu Breslau.

Zugl.: Köln, Univ., Diss., 2007

Zugl.: Bratislava, Comenius-Univ., Diss., 2009.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 234-250).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1973. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. 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 research aims to substantiate the idea that innovation is a capability that can be cultivated for equitable development and that a user’s freedom to innovate should not be violated by excessive intellectual property rights. The central feature of this idea is the principle of substantive equality of innovation capability, which is comprised of five components: equality of innovation opportunity, neutrality of innovation models, accessibility of the innovation commons, dignity of the entrepreneurial spirit, and respect for indigenous innovation. These five components will ensure that everyone has the basic innovation capability to function in the knowledge society and a real opportunity to access the innovation commons, mix her intellect with raw innovation resources, and participate in the decision-making process that affects her innovation capability and freedom. This thesis envisions a fair and balanced global innovation system and proposes a two-pronged approach to incorporate the TRIPS patent regime into this system. To promote multi-dimensional and equitable development, an innovation capability approach to development aims to maximize the contribution of intellectual resources to economic growth and human development through cultivating innovation capability and harnessing the power of non-proprietary innovation models. To increase the effectiveness of innovation systems and promote democratic innovation governance, an innovation equality and freedom approach to the TRIPS patent regime advances distributive justice and intergenerational equality objectives of the global innovation regime. A fair and balanced global innovation system has legal implications for both national governments and international institutions. A national government has the obligation to bring each and every citizen to a point of fair competition in the innovation market. This means that the government should provide equal opportunity to freely access the innovation commons and equally participate in the decision-making process that affects each person’s innovation capability and freedom. In addition, an optimal system of innovation ought to be based on a complementary combination of proprietary and non-proprietary systems in order to produce the highest attainable rates of innovation, productivity, and social utility. For international institutions, I suggest that the WIPO may be a more appropriate forum than the WTO for global innovation governance.

Patent law creates economic incentives for individuals and companies to invest in research and development, as well as to disclose publicly and commercialize new inventions. In creating these incentives, patents also impose costs on society through reduced access to new inventions. Generally, the benefits of the patent system outweigh the costs, but in new and rapidly developing industries the patent system itself can act as a barrier to the development of new technologies. This is of particular concern in the biotechnology industry where a proliferation of patents on basic and fundamental research tools risks hindering further innovation. This problem was first noted by US academics where patent rights are generally considered absolute. In contrast to the US, there are mechanisms already in place within the Canadian patent system that can be used to balance the public interest in access to technologies with the private interest promoted by patents. Two such mechanisms are studied in depth and compared: experimental use and compulsory licensing. Current conceptions of the experimental use exception to patent infringement are inadequate to deal with abuses found when research tools are patented and an expanded experimental use exception is therefore proposed to address the deficiencies found in the current law. In comparison, existing compulsory licensing provisions within the Competition and Patent Acts are generally sufficient to ensure access to needed research tools. The essential facilities doctrine developed through US antitrust laws provides assistance in determining when such compulsory licences should be granted. Compulsory licensing has certain advantages over an expanded experimental use exception: it would only be used for tools where there are no reasonable alternatives available to the scientist; and it is more likely to be compliant with Canada's international obligations. Ultimately, however, an expanded experimental use exception is preferred since it more quickly and easily puts the tools required for research into the hands of the scientists. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

This thesis deals with the analysis of patent information, focusing in particular on their use in the business environment. The first part deals with the problems of intellectual property and protection of industrial property rights. A substantial part of the work is devoted to the patent system and its importance for the development of innovative potential of companies and institutions. Another section contains information relating to the patent searching. The final chapters focus on areas of competitive intelligence and especially on the sources of patent information.