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

published_or_final_version / Chinese / Master / Master of Philosophy

Thesis (LL.M.)--University of Hong Kong, 1989. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print.

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a medical system with a unique medical philosophy that continues to guide the contemporary turning out of new pharmaceutical formulae. The clinically-proved effective components of these formulae are being extracted by means of modern technology. Natural Chinese medicines account for approximately 30% of the global sales volume of all medicines, and the international market-size of the TCM industry is increasing rapidly. The TCM industry depends on the patent protection of the results of its R&D no less than does any other industry. However, the patent examination guidelines of many important jurisdictions are hostile to the granting of patents to TCM products and processes. This is partly attributable to the vast differences between the philosophies of TCM and Western medicine, and to the imperfect understanding in many jurisdictions (particularly where Western Medicine is dominant) of the former. To this considerable degree, patent law fails to accommodate the TCM industry. Consequently, the TCM inventor will be left open to the depredations of the ‘free-rider’ phenomenon, the circumstance in which the inventor loses the benefits of his invention, and his investment in it, to a purloiner. The research examines the compatibilities between patent law and TCM, and argues that patent policy shall be adjusted to better accommodate the characteristics of TCM. Other forms of IPR protection are also discussed in comparison with patent with the purpose of illustrating the significance of patent in protecting TCM inventions. / published_or_final_version / Law / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Thesis--University of Washington. / Vita. Bibliography: leaves [226]-232.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1997. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [253]-264).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Zürich.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Göttingen.

Diss. Jur. Bern.

LL. M. (Intellectual Property Law) / Throughout the history of mankind and the countless ages in which law has found a voice, there has existed a need to achieve and maintain a balance between conflicting interests. In this everchanging and dynamic society the need for a balance is paramount. Although it may seem that the various conflicting interests are predominately of a private nature, many of these conflicting interests have consequences that have a salient impact on social welfare. One such branch of the law in which conflicting interests between various interested parties surface is patent law, and the controversial issue of software programs. The current socio-economic environment has experienced exponential technological growth, with substantial advancements not only in the field of hardware but also in the field of software. However, this same rapid growth is not always true when it comes to the law which, in certain fields may be remarked to unfortunately be lagging behind in the degree of protection it affords. The consequences of this may be dire in the case of technological developments, for it is the protection afforded that is in part responsible for the advancements in technology. This once again draws into account the fine line in the balance of rights between various conflicting interests, namely the protection of an individual’s creativity versus that of social welfare. In certain cases, regardless of how innovative or unique certain discoveries or developments may be, if they are important to the social welfare, then an individual’s rights or need for protection must give way. Having said this, one needs to evaluate where software programs fall within this delicate balance of rights. The legal position with regard to software programs in South African intellectual property law is found within the legislation. Namely, the protection afforded to software programs in the Copyright Act,1 and the exclusion of protection in the Patents Act.2 In light of this, why software programs are expressly excluded from protection in the Patents Act will be analysed. It will also be determined if, and to what extent, the Patents Act can be said to afford protection to software