Showing posts with label controversial patent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controversial patent. Show all posts

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Patent Problems and Controversies


Patents are a powerful monopoly with International reach. That means they can be very helpful in promoting innovation, but they can also cause problems and controversy. We list below topical problems relating to patents. This post does not aim to discuss each topic in detail, instead giving links to further information for those who are interested.

1. Access to medicines

Patents in the developing world cause drugs to be unaffordable for the poorest. It’s an issue still in need of resolving. See our IPKat post about it here.

2. TRIPS issues

The TRIPS agreement is not assisting technology transfer to the developing world as it was meant to, and arguably is hindering development in certain countries. We briefly discuss articles that suggest changing TRIPS here.

3. Patent trolls

This is a well-known problem in the US hi-tech sector with daily developments (see for example here). The US is responding with many legislative initiatives and the recent US Supreme Court ruling Alice v CLS Bank will also help (see our post on this decision here).

4. Is the present patent system appropriate for the developing world?

In many developing countries far more patent applications are filed by foreign companies than domestic companies. In this situation perhaps we need to rethink IP rights so that national interests are better served. See a Guardian article on this issue here.

5. Bioprospecting

Who owns natural resources and should patents be allowed to hinder their exploitation?  A recent article in the Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property illustrates these issues very well in the context of marine genetic resources (see here).

6. Specialist IP courts

Can specialist IP courts develop biases towards patentees? This accusation is sometimes directed at the US Federal Circuit (see here). See our post on specialist courts here.

7. Patenting nature or ‘building blocks’

The US Supreme Court decisions Mayo, Myriad and Alice are based on the principle that nature, natural law and abstract ideas cannot be patented. Essentially the ‘building blocks’ of innovation must be free for all to use. Decades of US case law no longer applies and patents will be more difficult to obtain in the biotech, pharma, chemical and software fields. See our post on the post-Alice post-Myriad post-Mayo world here.

8. Unfair trade agreements

What norms are needed to ensure that trade agreements that refer to IP are fair? This is a difficult issue when negotiations happen between parties of different powers, but clearly relevant to TRIPS and the present discussion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The Max Planck Institute is trying to formulate appropriate norms. See our post on their Declaration on Patent Protection here. See our post on the TPP here.

9. Evergreening

Evergreening is the use of patent protection on subsequent developments to extend protection for pharmaceutical products. Certain territories, like India, have legislation to specifically prevent this. See a paper on evergreening here.

10. Dominant patents inhibiting subsequent developments

There can be a ‘pioneer’ effect where the first party to obtain patent protection in a new field obtains broad claims which then hinder development in that field. See articles on that here and here, and our discussion of it on the PatLit blog here.

Monday, 5 August 2013

Top 10 Controversial Issues in Biotech Patenting


1.       Patents Inhibit Innovation

Do the monopolies provided by patents hinder research? The answer may vary in different technology areas, but in biotech they seem to be important to attract investment money. Whilst patents may deter research in particular areas, they are clearly an important part of the capitalist economic system without any real alternative.

2.       Patenting Life, Nature And Parts Of Human Beings

Should nature or human genes be patentable?  Don’t these belong to everyone? Why should someone else have a monopoly that covers my DNA, just because it is converted to an ‘isolated’ form?

3.       Broad Claims On Biotech Cases

Having worked on many biotech cases I would agree with the fact that broad claims are often pursued and granted.  However that is simply due to the nature of the subject matter and difficult to avoid.

4.       Health Care Costs

Patents on medicines increases healthcare costs which are presently increasing to unsustainable levels.  Whilst government authorities are probably becoming wiser in decision on what drugs to purchase, compulsory licensing is never mentioned in the developed world.

5.       Research Stifled In The Developing World

Foreign investment and technology needs to be protected in the developing world, but not at the expense of growing their own research capability.

6.       Biopiracy

The natural resources of the developing world belong to the relevant country.

7.       Patent Office Backlogs

Performing a freedom to operate search for a biotech invention often makes one realise how many unexamined patent applications there are out there.  How given the length of time it takes to develop biotech products patent office backlogs are probably an advantage for the biotech sector.

8.       Ever-greening

Ever-greening refers to obtaining further patent term for an invention by filing new patents which protect the original invention.  For example protection for cancer drugs can sometimes be extended by filing on the specific formulation which is used in administration.

9.       Patents Are Expensive To Obtain And Enforce

This is undoubtedly true and thus the big players are at an advantage.

10.   Patents Are Anticompetitive

Companies have portfolios providing multiple layers of patent protection for key products (patent thickets).  This is a commercial strategy which contributes little to innovation.  Also weak patent applications are filed for commercial reasons, and again these contribute little to innovation. 

You may also wish to see related articles Top 10 Points on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and What’s Happening to Pharma Patents in India.