Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Intellectual Property Rights of Nano-biotechnology in Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS)


Affiliations
1 Department of Life Science, Payam e Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
 

The emergent field of nanobiotechnology is currently very active worldwide with respect to intellectual property rights (IPR), especially patents. With the emergence of any new technology, nanobiotechnology creates opportunities as well as challenges in adapting the patent regime to its particular context. There is some consensus that patenting nanobiotechnology innovations poses problems than other technologies, owing to their multi-disciplinary character, cross-sectoral applications, broad claims, as well as difficulties in fulfilling the patentability criteria of novelty, nonobviousness, and industrial application. This is aggravated by the lack of a standardized terminology, which impedes easy identification of nanobio patents and the fact that patent offices may not be well equipped to handle nanobiotechnology. This paper seeks to examine the challenges which patenting of nano-biotechnology entails for the patent regimes of especially TRIPS agreement and how these could be addressed. The paper finally arrives at certain recommendations, to help reconcile the need to incentivize innovation in the new technology, with the imperative of ensuring that the public interest is served and access to the patented knowledge is not hindered.

Keywords

Nanobiotechnology, Intellectual Property, Trips Agreement, Challenges of Patentability
User

  • Agrawal A (2001) University-to-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Literature Review and Unanswered Questions. Int. J. Manage. Rev.3, 285-302.
  • Altbach PG (2007) Peripheries and Centres: Research Universities in Developing Countries. Higher Educ. Manage. Policy. 19, 106-130.
  • Ameden H, Qaim M and Zilberman D (2005) Adoption of Biotechnology in Developing Countries. Springer Publisher.
  • Audretsch DB and Aldridge OA (2006) The knowledge Filter and Economic Growth: The Role of Scientist Entrepreneurship. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
  • Australian Research Council (2000) Research in the National Interest; Commercializing University Research in Australia, Australian Research Council, Canberra.
  • Bastani B and Fernandez D (2002) Intellectual property rights in nanotechnology, Menlo Park, CA; Fernandez & Associates, LLP, Available at: http://www.iploft.com/Nanotechnology.pdf.
  • Bjerregaard T (2010) Industry and Academia in Convergence: Micro-Institutional Dimensions of R&D Collaborations. Technovation, 30, 100-108.
  • Daneshyar SA, Kohli K and Khar RK (2006) Biotechnology and intellectual property. Sci. Res. Essay. 1, 020-025.
  • Ho M (2001) why biotech patents are patently absurd-scientific briefing on TRIPS and related issues. Institute of Science in Society, London.
  • Hosseini SJ, Esmaeeli S and Ansari B (2011) Challenges in commercialization of nano and biotechnologies in agricultural sector of Iran. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10, 6516-6521.
  • Johnston PD, Santillo J and Parr D (2007) Policy on Nanotechnology. Greenpeace Environmental Trust.
  • Kamariah I, Senin AA, Mun SW, Chen WS and Musibau AA (2012) Decision making process in the commercialization of University patent in Malaysia. Afr. J. Bus. Manage. 6, 681-689.
  • Lovgren S (2005) One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented, Study Reveals for National Geographic News.
  • Mukesh P, Sridevi B, Manoj KRE and Anuradha BS (2006) Internet: A place for patent retrieval. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 5, 786-792.
  • Patent Act (1952) The US Patent and Trademark Office.
  • RMC (2011) Retrieved on the 23rd September 2011 from www.rmc.utm.my, this is the official website of the Research Management Centre of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
  • Powers JB and McDougall PP (2005) University Start-up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms that go Public; A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ven. 20, 343- 358.
  • Roberts EB and Malone R (1996) Policies and Structures for Spinning of New Companies from Research and Development Organizations R&D Manage.15, 283-298.
  • Slaughter S and Rhoades G (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore: JOHN Hopkins University Press.
  • Thumm N (1998) Recent developments with intellectual property rights protection for biotechnological inventions—a reflection on Spain. In: Paper presented to the PATLIB98, Alicante European Patent Office.

Abstract Views: 351

PDF Views: 109




  • Intellectual Property Rights of Nano-biotechnology in Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS)

Abstract Views: 351  |  PDF Views: 109

Authors

Abutaleb Koosha
Department of Life Science, Payam e Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Maryam Ahmadi
Department of Life Science, Payam e Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Abbas Nazifi
Department of Life Science, Payam e Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Reza Mousazadeh
Department of Life Science, Payam e Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


The emergent field of nanobiotechnology is currently very active worldwide with respect to intellectual property rights (IPR), especially patents. With the emergence of any new technology, nanobiotechnology creates opportunities as well as challenges in adapting the patent regime to its particular context. There is some consensus that patenting nanobiotechnology innovations poses problems than other technologies, owing to their multi-disciplinary character, cross-sectoral applications, broad claims, as well as difficulties in fulfilling the patentability criteria of novelty, nonobviousness, and industrial application. This is aggravated by the lack of a standardized terminology, which impedes easy identification of nanobio patents and the fact that patent offices may not be well equipped to handle nanobiotechnology. This paper seeks to examine the challenges which patenting of nano-biotechnology entails for the patent regimes of especially TRIPS agreement and how these could be addressed. The paper finally arrives at certain recommendations, to help reconcile the need to incentivize innovation in the new technology, with the imperative of ensuring that the public interest is served and access to the patented knowledge is not hindered.

Keywords


Nanobiotechnology, Intellectual Property, Trips Agreement, Challenges of Patentability

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2012%2Fv5iS3%2F30406