Make a Submission
No. 1-2 (143-144) (2000)
Artykuły

Ochrona prawna wynalazków biotechnologicznych w świetle Dyrektywy nr 98/44 z dnia 6 czerwca 1998 r.

[Legal protection of biotechnological inventions in light of Directive 98/44 of June 6, 1998]

  • Helena Żakowska-Henzler

Published 2000-06-30

Keywords

  • legal protection,
  • harmonization of the law with the EU,
  • patent law,
  • biotechnological invention
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Ochrona prawna wynalazków biotechnologicznych w świetle Dyrektywy nr 98/44 z dnia 6 czerwca 1998 r.: [Legal protection of biotechnological inventions in light of Directive 98/44 of June 6, 1998]. (2000). Studia Prawnicze The Legal Studies, 1-2 (143-144), 103-149. https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2000.1-2.3

Abstract

The qualification of a specific idea in the field of biotechnology as an invention follows the same rules that apply to the qualification of solutions in other fields. A biotechnological invention would therefore be any solution in the field of biotechnology that corresponds to the characteristics of an invention as established in the relevant national legal system.

By including all the types of inventions listed in the provision of Article 3 of Directive 98/44 within the category of patentable inventions, the possibility of successfully claiming a lack of technical character on the sole ground that the inventions concern living organisms was excluded.

An isolated gene or DNA sequence, with a function specified by the applicant, is considered to be a technical solution within the meaning of Article 3 of the Directive 98/44. It is not explicitly stated in the Directive whether the condition for patentability of such an invention is to indicate a biological function, i.e. the function that the DNA sequence in question performs in nature, or a function understood as a way of using such an invention, i.e. its industrial application.

Within the meaning of Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 98/44, isolation from the natural environment is the crucial for qualifying biological material existing in nature as inventions. This directive changes the commonly respected principles of patent law by allowing the patenting of scientific discoveries. Indeed, in order for a creation existing in nature (biological material) to qualify as an invention, it is not sufficient to merely ascertain (discover) the existence of such material. Such a discovery is transformed into an invention as soon as, as a result of creative action by the inventor (e.g. isolation, purification), it becomes possible to use biological material existing in nature to meet societal needs.

The definition of a microbiological method in Article 2.1 b of Directive 98/44 allows a method of obtaining plants or animals in which microbiological processes are only one element to be considered as microbiological and therefore patentable, as they occur alongside other (technical or natural), non-microbiological means necessary to obtain the desired result.

The technical nature of the process of separating elements of the human body as a condition for their patentability means that natural secretions of the body, such as blood, tears, or elements obtained by simple detachment from the body, such as amputated limbs or organs, cannot be the subject of a patent.

With regard to both types of patents (regarding the product and manner), the Directive therefore rejects the idea of narrowing the scope of protection to only those products obtained as a direct result of technical human influence.

Article 8.2 of Directive 98/44 does not entirely eliminate the doubts as to how far the patent protection for biological material obtained through biological processes should go, i.e. how many generations it should cover. The literal wording of this provision allows one to defend both, the thesis that patent protection is limited to the first generation from material obtained directly by the patented process, i.e. the first generation obtained, for instance, by self-reproduction, and the thesis that it covers all generations of biological material characterised by the features of the patented invention or the indirectly protected product. While the former interpretation seems closer to the traditional view of patent law, the latter more fully takes into account the specificity of inventions involving living matter.

Provided for in Article 11 of Directive 98/44 farmer's privileges have the effect of limiting the patent in such a way that the very economic use of the invention becomes permitted without the consent of the patentee and, in certain circumstances, as provided for in the Community Plant Variety Regulation, also without the obligation to pay any remuneration to the patentee.

References

  1. Beier F.K., Problemy ujednolicenia własności przemysłowej i swobodnego przepływu towarów w europejskim jednolitym rynku wewnętrznym oraz w obrocie z krajami trzecimi, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny” 1990, nr 1, s. 105-125.
  2. Council Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, „OJ” z 1 września 1994 r., nr L 227.
  3. Directive 98/44 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 r. on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ EC L 213/13.
  4. Gruszow L., Ochrona wynalazków w dziedzinie biotechnologii na tle orzecznictwa i w postępowaniu Europejskiego Urzędu Patentowego, „Biuletyn” 1996, nr 16.
  5. Gruszow L., Ochrona wynalazków w dziedzinie biotechnologii według Konwencji o Patencie Europejskim, „Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Wynalazczości i Ochrony Własności Intelektualnej” 1990, z. 52, s. 7-26.
  6. Kinkeldey U., The patenting of animals, „International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law” 1993, nr 6.
  7. Lancon P., EPO boards of appeal case law, „International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law” 1997, nr 6.
  8. Lasok D., Zarys prawa Unii Europejskiej, TNOiK "Dom Organizatora", Toruń 1995.
  9. Martin T., Patentability of methods of medical treatment. A comparative study, „Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society” 2000, t. 82, nr 6, s. 381-423.
  10. Moufang R., Problemy dotyczące nowych technologii, „Biuletyn” nr 16.
  11. Nott R., „You did it”. The European Biotechnology Directive at last, „European Intellectual Property Review” 1998, nr 9.
  12. Nott R., The Biotech Directive. Does Europe need a new draft?, „European Intellectual Property Review” 1995, nr 12.
  13. Nott R., The proposed EC Directive on biotechnological inventions, „European Intellectual Property Review” 1994, nr 5.
  14. Obwieszczenie Prezesa Rady Ministrów z dnia 17 marca 1993 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy o wynalazczości, Dz.U. 1993 Nr 26, poz. 117.
  15. Opinia nr 1/94 z 15 listopada 1994 r., „ECR” 1994, nr 5267.
  16. Oser A., Patenting (partial) gene sequences taking particular account of the EST issue, „International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law” 1999, nr 1.
  17. Patterson G., European Patent System, Sweet & Maxwell, London 1992.
  18. Peace N., Christie A., Intellectual property protection for the products of animal breeding, „European Intellectual Property Review” 1996, nr 4, s. 213-233.
  19. Roberts C., The prospect of success of the National Institute of Health’s Human Genome Application, „European Intellectual Property Review” 1994, nr 1, s. 30-36.
  20. Schatz U., Patentability of genetic engineering inventions in European Patent Office practice, „International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law” 1998, t. 29, nr 1, s. 2-16.
  21. Scott A., The dutch challange to the Biopatenting Directive, „European Intellectual Property Review” 1999, nr 4.
  22. Sołtysiński S., [w:] J. Szwaja, A. Szajkowski (red.), System prawa własności intelektualnej, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław-Warszawa 1990.
  23. Sołtysiński S., [w:] S. Sołtysińki, A. Szajkowski, T. Szymanek, Komentarz, do prawa wynalazczego, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1990.
  24. Straus J., Patenting human genes in Europe - past developments and prospects for the future, „International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law” 1995, nr 6.
  25. Szajkowski A., Harmonizacja polskiego prawa patentowego z europejskim prawem patentowym, „Studia Prawnicze” 1996, nr 1-4, s. 153-190.
  26. Układ Europejski ustanawiający stowarzyszenie między Rzecząpospolitą Polską, z jednej strony, a Wspólnotami Europejskimi i ich Państwami Członkowskimi, z drugiej strony, sporządzony w Brukseli dnia 16 grudnia 1991 r., Dz.U. 1994 Nr 11, poz. 38.
  27. Ustawa z dnia 19 października 1972 r. o wynalazczości, Dz.U. 1972 Nr 43, poz. 272.
  28. Warren A., A mouse in sheep’ s clothing: The challenge to the patent morality criterion posed by „Dolly”, „European Intellectual Property Review” 1998, t. 20, nr 12, s. 445-452.
  29. Żakowska-Henzler H., Ochrona własności przemysłowej w wybranych dziedzinach twórczości, „Studia Prawnicze” 1996, nr 1-4, s. 191-230.