• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Consider the idea of inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ordre public or morality. [EPC2000, Article 53(a)] Contrast these types of patent subject matter with other related subject matter which has been found to be patentable. Where do the borders of morality/immorality seem to lie in current law?

Extracts from this document...


With regard to the excluded subject matters especially the exploitation of biotechnological inventions such as life patenting with regard to human related gene modifications, stem cell research, but also the breeding of plant and animal varieties has drawn lots of publicity[1]. But what inventions are deemed moral or immoral from a public ordre perspective in Europe? For subject matters which come under the respective provisions for not granting a right to inventions of which the commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality, the European Regime provided legislative guidance by issuing the EC Biotechnology Directive[2] which is reflected in the EPC 2000[3] and, despite some slight verbatim differences, is enacted in the statutes and schedules of the Patent Act 1977[4]. At the IPO, the threshold for moral issues goes beyond biotechnological invention, and thus, is broadly defined by the respective examination guidelines as to prevent the patent grant of an invention that would be expected to encourage offensive, immoral or antisocial behavior[5]. Nevertheless, the respective schedule focuses on biotechnology and sets out that processes for cloning human beings and modifying the germ line genetic identity of human beings[6] are clearly excluded on grounds of immorality, whereas ...read more.


53(a) at the EPO was centered on the Oncomouse[10] case. which was ruled prior to and post the introduction of the EPC Rules in 2000[11], whereas in terms of animals as shown above, the EPO draws the line of morality by the application of the so-called utilitarian balance test in order to exercise balance between animal suffering, potential risks for the environment and beneficial usefulness to mankind. According to this narrative the necessarily cause of suffering[12] to the animals was sufficient to conclude immorality and render the invention for the process not patentable. However, it has to be highlighted that sharp line is drawn by the black letters of Art. 53(a) and Rule 28, since from an EU and UK perspective neither product claims, nor product-by-process claims will be affected by the non-patentability of biological processes in the above scope[13]. Albeit the established cost-benefit-test with regard to Art. 53(a), in Plant Genetic Systems the EPO Opposition Division neglected to employ the test in the opposition proceedings, because there was no sufficient prove to quantify the reasons for the objection. ...read more.


[7] ibid sch A2 para 3(c) [8] ibid sch A2 para 3(c) [9] Christoph Then & Ruth Tippe, 'President of the European Patent Office gives green light for patents on plants and animals' (Green light for patents on plants and animals, March 2013,www.no-patents-on-seeds.org) <http://www.swissaid.ch/sites/default/files/Report_New_Wave_of_Patents_2013.pdf> accessed on 13 September 2013 p10 [10] T19/90 Harvard/Onco-Mouse [1990] EPO OJ 12/476 [11] Ella O’Sullivan, 'Article 53(a) EPC and the patentability of animals: The effect of Rule 23d(d) on ordre public and morality evaluations in the European Patent Office' <http://www.atrip.org/Content/Essays/Article%2053a%20EPC%20and%20the%20patentability%20of%20animals.doc> accessed on 13 September 2013 [12] ibid [1990] T19/90 paras 501, 513 [13] Michelangelo Temmerman, 'The Patentability of Plant Genetic Inventions'(2006) 1 NCCR Trade Regulation Working Paper p 11 [14] Plant Genetic Systems v Greenpeace, EPO Technical Board of Appeal T 356/93 [1995] OJ EPO 545 § 26 [15] Lionel Bently, Intellectual property law (3rd edn, OUP 2009) p 457 [16] R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13 [17] Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to Biotechnological Inventions in the Intellectual Property Office (IPO, July 2012 ) <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/biotech.pdf> accessed on 13 September 2013 para 105 [18] WARF/ Use of embryos [2009] EPOR 15 (G 0002/06) ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Intellectual Property Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Intellectual Property Law essays

  1. Copyright Property Law Case. The particular case study that applies to this material is ...

    Hefner in the lab. The files would only be available to his group of students by entering the appropriate access information. This would be sharing the information for teaching purposes to help the trainees with their relevant lab work associated with the online journals.

  2. Intellectual Property Right

    'Standardized IP protection can produce more costs than benefits when applied in developing countries, which rely in large part on knowledge generated elsewhere to satisfy their basic needs and foster development.' (Commission on IPR, 2002) Undoubtedly, patents matter greatly to some industries, such as pharmaceuticals.

  1. property law

    This is particularly so in relation to property. The Development of Equity Early Development The separation of the administration of equity from that of the common law, and its institutionalisation into a set of additional rules, developed as a result of the early split that occurred, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, between the executive and judicial arms of the medieval state.

  2. Critically analyse what makes for sufficient disclosure in the description of a patentable invention, ...

    invention to be performed to the full extent of the monopoly claimed, aims for a limitation of patentability for the sake of not unduly stifling industrial and technological development in this field[12]. Thus, it becomes clear that when Lord Hoffman held that the legal principle is that the extent of

  1. Using the patent specification obtained from patent number GB2419438, briefly describe the nature of ...

    The working of the invention is sufficiently disclosed by the embodiment with regard to the solution of the technical problem and the prior art thereto[12]. Furthermore the inventive features to work the invention are illustrated by the exemplary embodiment which demonstrates the enablement of the invention[13].

  2. What are the key issues in relation to protection of computer-implemented inventions by the ...

    all fields of technology.[9] In respective case law this flexibility precept along with decision in T 1173/97 IBM showcases the liberal stance, that a claim to a computer implemented method or a computer program on a computer-readable storage medium will never fall within the exclusion of claimed subject-matter[10].

  1. What might be the greatest strengths of the patent system in its modern form, ...

    2006[10] and their national champions in the respective flagship industries that dominate the global market[11]. At first glance, this leaves developing countries as the losers of modern patent systems[12]. Thence, there are also costs which come with the introduction of modern patent systems.

  2. Online Piracy. Justice found between protection of infringers' privacy and enforcement of producers' ...

    It is a one-to-one connection. When there are hundreds or even thousands of downloaders at the same time, the download would be slow as there is only one server. In a P2P network, all users are equal peer nodes. They are both server and client.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work