Patent law
| Bostyn, S.
2016, (European Commission, Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW).). @misc{Bostyn2016,
title = {Final report of the Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering}, author = {Bostyn, S.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report-of-Biotech-Expert-Group.pdf}, year = {2016}, date = {2016-10-28}, abstract = {This is the Final Report of the of the Europen Commission Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering, which is chaired by Dr. Sven Bostyn. It describes in detail the issues regarding a number of very important topics in the area of biotechnological inventions, i.e., the patentability of plants and processes for making plants, issues relating to human embryonic stem cells and the patentability of human DNA. It finally provides advice for future policy and legislative work. }, note = {European Commission, Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW).}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } This is the Final Report of the of the Europen Commission Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering, which is chaired by Dr. Sven Bostyn. It describes in detail the issues regarding a number of very important topics in the area of biotechnological inventions, i.e., the patentability of plants and processes for making plants, issues relating to human embryonic stem cells and the patentability of human DNA. It finally provides advice for future policy and legislative work.
|
| Tsoutsanis, A.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, (10), pp. 725., 2015, ( @article{,
title = {Back to Black: justice.cn}, author = {Tsoutsanis, A.}, url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2667516}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-10-15}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice}, number = {10}, pages = {725.}, abstract = { This short - peer reviewed - article touches on innovation in China in the field of smart phones, recent legislative reform in China for fostering intellectual property and combating counterfeit and trade mark grabbing. It also touches on human rights in China, the different approach in which the West advances its economic v human rights agenda and the selective way Silicon Valley industry participates in grass roots debate on civil liberties. The article also touches on the 'right to seek counsel' as one of the fundamental rights, which many arrested lawyers in China were deprived of during the July 2015 arrests. }, note = { Editorial. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
This short - peer reviewed - article touches on innovation in China in the field of smart phones, recent legislative reform in China for fostering intellectual property and combating counterfeit and trade mark grabbing. It also touches on human rights in China, the different approach in which the West advances its economic v human rights agenda and the selective way Silicon Valley industry participates in grass roots debate on civil liberties. The article also touches on the 'right to seek counsel' as one of the fundamental rights, which many arrested lawyers in China were deprived of during the July 2015 arrests.
|
| Bostyn, S.
The Journal of World Intellectual Property, (3-4), pp. 105-149, 2014. @article{,
title = {Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?}, author = {Bostyn, S.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1401.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-08-26}, journal = {The Journal of World Intellectual Property}, number = {3-4}, pages = {105-149}, abstract = { This article provides an in-depth critical analysis of pressing issues regarding the patentability of plants. There is no public interest overarching principle present in the European Patent Convention or any other convention for that matter which would exclude patent protection for plants. The expansionist behavior of some users of the patent system seeking to obtain patent protection for methods and products which are very akin to traditional breeding methods needs to be halted and patent applications in that context deserve very close scrutiny so as to avoid that the border is crossed. Patents for hybrid seeds ought not to be protected by patents, as they in effect protect plant varieties as such. If the patent system is not capable of keeping such innovations outside of the patent territory, the call for excluding all plant-related innovations from patentability will become more influential. Products produced by essentially biological processes should not be patentable. However, in the absence of a statutory basis, the current legal framework does not allow the judiciary to come to such conclusion. The EPC needs to be amended in this respect. Finally, introducing a breeders’ exemption in the patent system could jeopardize the internal and external architecture of the patent system and one should be wary of introducing it. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
This article provides an in-depth critical analysis of pressing issues regarding the patentability of plants. There is no public interest overarching principle present in the European Patent Convention or any other convention for that matter which would exclude patent protection for plants. The expansionist behavior of some users of the patent system seeking to obtain patent protection for methods and products which are very akin to traditional breeding methods needs to be halted and patent applications in that context deserve very close scrutiny so as to avoid that the border is crossed. Patents for hybrid seeds ought not to be protected by patents, as they in effect protect plant varieties as such. If the patent system is not capable of keeping such innovations outside of the patent territory, the call for excluding all plant-related innovations from patentability will become more influential. Products produced by essentially biological processes should not be patentable. However, in the absence of a statutory basis, the current legal framework does not allow the judiciary to come to such conclusion. The EPC needs to be amended in this respect. Finally, introducing a breeders’ exemption in the patent system could jeopardize the internal and external architecture of the patent system and one should be wary of introducing it.
|
| Tsoutsanis, A.
Finding Vredo: The Dutch Supreme Court Decision on Escitalopram Berichten Industriële Eigendom, (2), pp. 41-45, 2014. @article{,
title = {Finding Vredo: The Dutch Supreme Court Decision on Escitalopram}, author = {A. Tsoutsanis}, url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2451438}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-07-18}, journal = {Berichten Industri\"{e}le Eigendom}, number = {2}, pages = {41-45}, abstract = { This article is about the pharma patent litigation sparked by Lundbeck's blockbuster drug for 'escitalopram', a drug used for treating depression and generalized anxiety disorder. The key theme is about whether patents can also protect novel substances that can be fully envisaged but cannot yet be made. The decision of the Supreme Court is compared with earlier decisions in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author criticizes the lack of explanation provided by the Supreme Court. }, note = { Also published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2014-8, p. 644-649. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
This article is about the pharma patent litigation sparked by Lundbeck's blockbuster drug for 'escitalopram', a drug used for treating depression and generalized anxiety disorder. The key theme is about whether patents can also protect novel substances that can be fully envisaged but cannot yet be made. The decision of the Supreme Court is compared with earlier decisions in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author criticizes the lack of explanation provided by the Supreme Court.
|
| Tsoutsanis, A.
Comparison of Patent Claim Construction between Netherlands and Germany on Basis of AGA v. Occlutech World Intellectual Property Report, (6), pp. 32-34, 2013. @article{,
title = {Comparison of Patent Claim Construction between Netherlands and Germany on Basis of AGA v. Occlutech}, author = {A. Tsoutsanis}, url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2262859}, year = {2013}, date = {2013-06-27}, journal = {World Intellectual Property Report}, number = {6}, pages = {32-34}, abstract = { This article provides a brief overview on how the Dutch and German courts interpret the claims of a patent. It briefly compares each national approach on the basis of the recent AGA v Occlutech litigation in both countries. The dispute between AGA and Occlutech involved socalled ‘‘occluders’’, a collapsible medical device for closing defects in the septum wall of the heart through cardiac catheterisation. Items discussed are: claim construction and judicial balancing under the new "Protocol for the Interpretation of Art. 69 of the European Patent Convention", equivalence, pioneer inventions and file wrapper estoppel. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
This article provides a brief overview on how the Dutch and German courts interpret the claims of a patent. It briefly compares each national approach on the basis of the recent AGA v Occlutech litigation in both countries. The dispute between AGA and Occlutech involved socalled ‘‘occluders’’, a collapsible medical device for closing defects in the septum wall of the heart through cardiac catheterisation. Items discussed are: claim construction and judicial balancing under the new "Protocol for the Interpretation of Art. 69 of the European Patent Convention", equivalence, pioneer inventions and file wrapper estoppel.
|
| Tsoutsanis, A.
Octrooien, tussen letter en geest, annotatie bij Hoge Raad 25 mei 2012 (AGA / Occlutech) 2013. @misc{,
title = {Octrooien, tussen letter en geest, annotatie bij Hoge Raad 25 mei 2012 (AGA / Occlutech)}, author = {A. Tsoutsanis}, url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2233404}, year = {2013}, date = {2013-03-15}, journal = {Berichten Industri\"{e}le Eigendom}, number = {12}, pages = { 64-70}, abstract = { Extensive case-comment on the most important ruling in patent law in The Netherlands in the last five years. It addresses the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court 25 May 2012 \textit{AGA v Occlutech}. The paper contains a historical, transnational and comparative approach, tracing back the origins of some of the recent controversy on claim construction in the Netherlands, while also reflecting on recent literature and case-law in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author contrasts and compares the Dutch approach on claim construction with the new developments of the Revised Protocol of art. 69 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The paper sets out and summarizes the Dutch standard for claim construction, touching on important elements in legal practice such as the impact of (a) the two-part form of a claim, (b) the file wrapper and patent prosecution history, (c) equivalence and (d) whether the degree of inventive step or innovative character of the patent, warrants a bigger scope of protection. It also compares the outcome of the decisions on the same patent between the same parties in Germany and the United Kingdom AGA and Occlutech. The paper concludes with looking back on the achievements of the EPC, while also looking forward to the new legislative developments surrounding the Unitary Patent and the Agreement for a Unified Patent Court. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
Extensive case-comment on the most important ruling in patent law in The Netherlands in the last five years. It addresses the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court 25 May 2012 AGA v Occlutech. The paper contains a historical, transnational and comparative approach, tracing back the origins of some of the recent controversy on claim construction in the Netherlands, while also reflecting on recent literature and case-law in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author contrasts and compares the Dutch approach on claim construction with the new developments of the Revised Protocol of art. 69 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The paper sets out and summarizes the Dutch standard for claim construction, touching on important elements in legal practice such as the impact of (a) the two-part form of a claim, (b) the file wrapper and patent prosecution history, (c) equivalence and (d) whether the degree of inventive step or innovative character of the patent, warrants a bigger scope of protection. It also compares the outcome of the decisions on the same patent between the same parties in Germany and the United Kingdom AGA and Occlutech. The paper concludes with looking back on the achievements of the EPC, while also looking forward to the new legislative developments surrounding the Unitary Patent and the Agreement for a Unified Patent Court.
|
| Ramalho, A.
Portugal - Vorläufige Patentanmeldungen: Eine erfolgreiche Neuerung GRUR International, (10), pp. 882, 2009. @article{,
title = {Portugal - Vorl\"{a}ufige Patentanmeldungen: Eine erfolgreiche Neuerung}, author = {A.B. Ramalho}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Ramalho_GRUR.pdf}, year = {2009}, date = {2009-10-29}, journal = {GRUR International}, number = {10}, pages = {882}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Bostyn, S.
No Contact with the Human Body, Please! Patentability of Diagnostic Method Inventions after G01/04 European Intellectual Property Review, (6), pp. 238-244, 2007. @article{,
title = {No Contact with the Human Body, Please! Patentability of Diagnostic Method Inventions after G01/04}, author = {S.J.R. Bostyn}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/993.pdf}, year = {2007}, date = {2007-08-09}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, number = {6}, pages = {238-244}, abstract = {When the referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) was made in respect of diagnostic method inventions, high expectations were present that the decision would bring an end to existing confusion and legal uncertainty with regard to diagnostic method patent applications. As will be seen further in this comment, the EBA had not entirely delivered. }, When the referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) was made in respect of diagnostic method inventions, high expectations were present that the decision would bring an end to existing confusion and legal uncertainty with regard to diagnostic method patent applications. As will be seen further in this comment, the EBA had not entirely delivered.
|
| Bostyn, S.
DNA patents in Europe: Controversy remains 10.05.2005. @misc{,
title = {DNA patents in Europe: Controversy remains}, author = {S.J.R. Bostyn}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/994.pdf}, year = {2005}, date = {2005-05-10}, note = { Lezing gehouden tijdens symposium "The ethics of patenting human genes and stem cells", georganiseerd door University of Copenhagen, Danish Council of Ethics en Biotik, 28 september 2004. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {presentation} } |
| Bostyn, S.
2005. @techreport{,
title = {Patenting DNA sequences (polynucletides) and scope of protection in the European Union: an evaluation}, author = {S.J.R. Bostyn}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/patentingdna.pdf}, year = {2005}, date = {2005-01-27}, pages = {162}, note = { Background study for the European Commission within the framework of the Expert Group on Biotechnological Inventions, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research Food Quality and Safety, 2004. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } |
| Bostyn, S.
2005. @techreport{,
title = {Enabling biotechnological inventions in Europe and the United States: a study of the patentability of proteins and DNA sequences with special emphasis on the disclosure requirement}, author = {S.J.R. Bostyn}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/996.pdf}, year = {2005}, date = {2005-01-27}, note = { European Patent Office, 2001. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } |
| Bakels, R.B.
Van software to erger: op zoek naar de grenzen van het octrooirecht IER, (4), pp. 213-221, 2004. @article{,
title = {Van software to erger: op zoek naar de grenzen van het octrooirecht}, author = {Bakels, R.B.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IER_RBB.PDF}, year = {2004}, date = {2004-01-09}, journal = {IER}, number = {4}, pages = {213-221}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Bakels, R.B.
Software: werkwijze of voortbrengsel? Bijblad bij de Industriële Eigendom, (10), pp. 428-434, 2003. @article{,
title = {Software: werkwijze of voortbrengsel?}, author = {Bakels, R.B.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/werkwijzeofvoortbrengsel.pdf}, year = {2003}, date = {2003-10-24}, journal = {Bijblad bij de Industri\"{e}le Eigendom}, number = {10}, pages = {428-434}, abstract = {Het onderscheid tussen werkwijze- en voortbrengseloctrooien lijkt een juridisch-technische kwestie van ondergeschikt belang. In dit artikel wordt betoogd, dat het zowel om praktische als om theoretische redenen wel degelijk van belang is software-uitvindingen weloverwogen in het octrooisysteem te positioneren. }, Het onderscheid tussen werkwijze- en voortbrengseloctrooien lijkt een juridisch-technische kwestie van ondergeschikt belang. In dit artikel wordt betoogd, dat het zowel om praktische als om theoretische redenen wel degelijk van belang is software-uitvindingen weloverwogen in het octrooisysteem te positioneren.
|
| Bakels, R.B.
Softwareoctrooien: een vanzelfsprekendheid of een gevaarlijke ontaarding? Computerrecht, (6), pp. 347-352, 2002. @article{,
title = {Softwareoctrooien: een vanzelfsprekendheid of een gevaarlijke ontaarding?}, author = {Bakels, R.B.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/softwareoctrooien.pdf}, year = {2002}, date = {2002-12-20}, journal = {Computerrecht}, number = {6}, pages = {347-352}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Bakels, R.B., Hugenholtz, P.
The patentability of computer programs 2002, ( @techreport{,
title = {The patentability of computer programs}, author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Bakels, R.B.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/softwarepatent.pdf}, year = {2002}, date = {2002-07-25}, abstract = { Dit rapport is het resultaat van een korte-termijn studie in opdracht van het Europees Parlement over de vraag of het wenselijk is om te komen tot wetgeving op Europees niveau op het gebied van software-octrooien. Het rapport omvat een vergelijkende analyse van het geldend recht, en van de voor- en nadelen van software-octrooien zoals die naar voren komen uit de huidige praktijk in de lidstaten van de EU, de Verenigde Staten en Japan. Behalve aan octrooien op software wordt ook aandacht besteed aan octrooien op het nauw verwante gebied van "business methods". }, note = { Studie in opdracht van het Europees Parlement (april 2002). }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} }
Dit rapport is het resultaat van een korte-termijn studie in opdracht van het Europees Parlement over de vraag of het wenselijk is om te komen tot wetgeving op Europees niveau op het gebied van software-octrooien. Het rapport omvat een vergelijkende analyse van het geldend recht, en van de voor- en nadelen van software-octrooien zoals die naar voren komen uit de huidige praktijk in de lidstaten van de EU, de Verenigde Staten en Japan. Behalve aan octrooien op software wordt ook aandacht besteed aan octrooien op het nauw verwante gebied van "business methods".
|