• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >A Comparative Study on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Patent Law in the United States, the European Patent Organization, and China.
【24h】

A Comparative Study on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Patent Law in the United States, the European Patent Organization, and China.

机译：美国，欧洲专利组织和中国的人类胚胎干细胞专利法比较研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

With the recent developments in biotechnology, associated patent law issues have been a growing concern since the 1980s. Among all the subcategories within the general field of biotechnology, human embryonic stem cell research, as one of the most controversial, is receiving different patent system treatment in different countries. China explicitly opposes the patentability of hESCs in its patent regulations on the basis that patenting hESCs is contrary to morality and the public interest. Similarly, the EPO, relying on ambiguous language in the European Patent Convention [EPC], excludes hESCs from patentability by broadly interpreting the morality clause of the EPC. In contrast, the United States has become the main progenitor of hESC patents. By analyzing the reasons to grant or deny patents on hESCs, and considering patent law doctrines and justifications, this dissertation reaches two conclusions. First, patent law should not include a morality clause and should only take into consideration technical concerns. Moral issues should be left to other mechanisms such as administrative law. This is an approach deeply rooted in the American patent system, but not in China or the EPO. Second, by reviewing the requirements of patentability such as novelty, non-obviousness and utility, it can be concluded that hESCs themselves are not patentable because they lack a specific concrete utility and, since they already exist in nature, they lack novelty as well. However, hESC production processes and derivative products are patentable.
机译：随着生物技术的最新发展，自1980年代以来，相关的专利法问题就越来越引起人们的关注。在生物技术领域内的所有子类别中，人类胚胎干细胞研究作为最有争议的研究之一，正在不同的国家接受不同的专利制度治疗。中国在其专利法规中明确反对hESC的可专利性，因为hESC的专利申请违背了道德和公共利益。同样，EPO依靠《欧洲专利公约》（EPC）中模棱两可的语言，通过广泛解释EPC的道德条款将hESC排除在可专利性之外。相比之下，美国已成为hESC专利的主要来源。通过分析授予或拒绝hESCs专利的原因，并考虑专利法的理论和理由，本文得出两个结论。首先，专利法不应包括道德条款，而应仅考虑技术问题。道德问题应留给其他机制，例如行政法。这是一种深深植根于美国专利制度的方法，但不适用于中国或EPO。其次，通过回顾可专利性的要求，例如新颖性，非显而易见性和实用性，可以得出结论，hESCs本身不具有专利性，因为它们缺乏特定的具体实用性，并且由于它们已经存在于自然界中，因此也缺乏新颖性。但是，hESC生产工艺和衍生产品已申请专利。

著录项

  • 作者

    Zhu, Huan.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Kansas.;

  • 授予单位 University of Kansas.;
  • 学科 Patent Law.
  • 学位 S.J.D.
  • 年度 2011
  • 页码 289 p.
  • 总页数 289
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号