Intellectual property protection for plant-related inventions in Europe

The economic and political issues that accompany the commercial growing of genetically modified crops, as well as the risk of transgene spread, are often top of the agenda for debate. But one important aspect is frequently overlooked--the intellectual property protection of plant-related inventions. What protection does European patent law afford to such inventions, how does it compare with the United States law and what are the consequences of the differences between them?     

Intellectual property protection: Strategies for future antibody inventions

In the last decade, therapeutic antibodies have become one of the most commercially successful classes of biopharmaceutic drugs. Major drug manufacturers who have successfully managed to occupy this new market, as well as biotechnology firms, some of which have experienced a quick growth and are now on par with the former, owe part of their success to suitable intellectual property (IP) strategies. This article provides an overview of the current thinking on antibody-related patents, and discusses strategies for protecting the antibody products of the future.Key words: antibody, mimetics, patent, inventive, intellectual property     

Patent protection for structural genomics-related inventions

Recently there have been some important developments with respect to the patentability of inventions in the field of structural genomics. The leaders of the European Patent Office (EPO), Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the United States Patent Office (USPTO) came together for a trilateral meeting to conduct a comparative study on protein 3-dimensional (3-D) structure related claims in an effort to come to a mutual understanding about the examination of such inventions. The three patent offices were presented with eight different cases: 1) 3-D structural data of a protein per se; 2) computer-readable storage medium encoded with structural data of a protein; 3) protein defined by its tertiary structure; 4) crystals of known proteins; 5) binding pockets and protein domains; 6) and 7) are both directed to in silico screening methods directed to a specific protein; and 8) pharmacophores. The preliminary conclusions reached at the trilateral meeting provide clarity regarding the types of inventions that may be patentable given a specific set of scientific facts in a patent application. Therefore, the guidance provided by this study will help inventors, attorneys and other patent practitioners who file for patent protection on structural genomics-based inventions both here and abroad comply with the patentability requirements of each office.Abbreviations: (Not Applicable)     

Genome editing: intellectual property and product development in plant biotechnology

Genome editing is a revolutionary technology in molecular biology. While scientists are fascinated with the unlimited possibilities provided by directed and controlled changes in DNA in eukaryotes and have eagerly adopted such tools for their own experiments, an understanding of the intellectual property (IP) implications involved in bringing genome editing-derived products to market is often lacking. Due to the ingenuity of genome editing, the time between new product conception and its actual existence can be relatively short; therefore knowledge about IP of the various genome editing methods is relevant. This point must be regarded in a national framework as patents are instituted nationally. Therefore, when designing scientific work that could lead to a product, it is worthwhile to consider the different methods used for genome editing not only for their scientific merits but also for their compatibility with a speedy and reliable launch into the desired market.     

The development of property rights in biotechnology

The translation of biological theory into engineering (biotechnology) has resulted in the development of novel products and processes. Some of these products are living organisms, usually containing unique genetic arrangements not found in nature. The extension of legal protection to products and processes was required in order for biotechnology to become an unexceptional way in which to do business. The American experience with biotechnology, repeated elsewhere, is demonstrated to have proceeded first through the negotiation of obstacles in administrative law and second through challenges to property law. This outcome for the regulatory management of biotechnology and the legal protection of its products may be interpreted as a function of a cultural bias for scientific authority and progress ideology.     

Needed: models of biotechnology intellectual property

Although never uncontroversial, intellectual property rights in biotechnological innovation are once more the focus of intense debate. The debate has yet to reach any result, largely because of several important errors in the way that various disciplines approach it. These errors include making assumptions without empirical basis and conflating various intellectual property regimes. What is needed is a transdisciplinary integrated method to correct these errors. Such a method can be implemented through the construction of alternative models of intellectual property protection designed to balance the various social, ethical and economic constraints that affect biotechnology.     

Intellectual property in natural sciences

The way from scientific finding through invention to production line and finally to the consument is long and expensive and patent should be taken into account. This is evident because the investment connected with the new application needs clear definition of intellectual property rights. Independently what we personally think about patenting in nature sciences--this is a common practice around the world. The positive and negative parameters of patenting are focus on biotechnology. The development of biotechnology is a cumulative effect of co-operation of several disciplines: biology, biochemistry, chemistry, engineering, genetics, medicines and pharmacy and many more. Between not cited here is law and consequently the needs of cooperation between researchers and lawyers. There are several barriers in this co-operation, for example: nomenclature as well as the way of thinking. These borders could be pass only with intercommunication and cross-understanding. The dialog and transfer of knowledge is a must for understanding the nomenclature, terminology of nature by lawyers and by researchers in case of law. Polish legislation concerning intellectually rights is regulated by the law "Prawo w?asno?ci przemys?owej" (30 June, 2000; Dz. U. 2003, Nr 119, pos. 1117, with later amendments). This legislation is related to European Union directives and Munich Convention. Accordingly patenting of product and process is possible in Poland. However, the procedure is time and money consuming, particularly in the case of patent submission in several countries. Amendment of the Polish law to biotechnology made possible patenting of living organism and their parts. It is worth to stress that patented inventions can be used free of charge for research and teaching.     

An intellectual property sharing initiative in agricultural biotechnology: development of broadly accessible technologies for plant transformation

The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA) was founded in 2004 by the Rockefeller Foundation in response to concerns that public investments in agricultural biotechnology benefiting developing countries were facing delays, high transaction costs and lack of access to important technologies due to intellectual property right (IPR) issues. From its inception, PIPRA has worked broadly to support a wide range of research in the public sector, in specialty and minor acreage crops as well as crops important to food security in developing countries. In this paper, we review PIPRA's work, discussing the failures, successes, and lessons learned during its years of operation. To address public sector's limited freedom-to-operate, or legal access to third-party rights, in the area of plant transformation, we describe PIPRA's patent 'pool' approach to develop open-access technologies for plant transformation which consolidate patent and tangible property rights in marker-free vector systems. The plant transformation system has been licensed and deployed for both commercial and humanitarian applications in the United States (US) and Africa, respectively.     

A short history of plant biotechnology

The foundations of modern plant biotechnology can be traced back to the Cell Theory of Schleiden (Arch Anat Physiol Wiss Med (J Müller) 1838:137–176, 1838) and Schwann (Mikroscopische Untersuchungen über die übereinstimmung in der Struktur und dem Wachstum des Tiere und Pflanzen. W Engelmann: Leipzig No 176, 1839), which recognized the cell as the primary unit of all living organisms. The concept of cellular totipotency, which was inherent in the Cell Theory and forms the basis of plant biotechnology, was further elaborated by Haberlandt (Sitzungsber K Preuss Akad Wiss Wien, Math-Naturwiss 111:69–92, 1902), who predicted the production of somatic embryos from vegetative cells. This brief historical account traces the development of technologies for the culture, regeneration and transformation of plants that led to the production of transgenic crops which have become central to the many applications of plant biotechnology, and celebrates the pioneering men and women whose trend-setting contributions made it all possible. Opening Plenary Address delivered at the international conference on “Plants for Human Health in the Post-Genome Era”, held August 26–29, 2007, in Helsinki, Finland.     

A survey of problems relating to legal protection of genetic engineering inventions

In the first patent applications in the field of genetic engineering the main problems were the terminology and the definition of various concepts. This was mainly due to the fact that the field of genetic engineering was new to the patent officials as well as to the patent attorneys. At the moment the terminology and the concepts have already become familiar and patent problems also in the microbiological sector are merely technical. However, new exiting problems have arisen because of the rapid development in the field of plant and animal biotechnology. A lot of work is still needed before the patent system fulfills its purpose as a promoter of technical, economical and social progress also in the field of biotechnology.