Analysis of Patentability of Surgical Methods in European Patent System

Mohammad Hossein Erfanmanesh, Mehdi Zahedi, Mahmoud Abbasi

Abstract


56

Surgical methods are among excluded subject matter from patentability in most countries’ patent laws. However, due to rapid advances in scientific discoveries in medical and biotechnological fields, the variety of inventions related to surgical methods are notably increasing. This has given rise to the difficulty in determining the scope of the patentable inventions, and inconsistency in European case-law. Here, one of the reasons behind such disparity in decisions is the difference in the courts’ interpretation about the Ratio Legis of excluding surgical methods. While some courts consider the nature of such methods as the reason for this exclusion, others regard their purpose in maintaining life and health of the human or animal as the reason. This Article tries to analyze the complexities of the patentability of surgical methods by examining the case-law main approaches and recent developments related to such methods.


Keywords


Surgical Methods; Patentability; Ratio Legis; Nature or Purpose of Surgery; Disclaimer

Full Text:

PDF

54

References


منابع فارسی:

زاهدي، مهدي. عرفان‌منش، محمدحسين. (1392 ش.). امكان ثبت رژيم‌هاي دوزِ دارويي به عنوان اختراع در اروپا. پژوهش حقوق خصوصي. شماره سوم.

منابع انگلیسی:

Aplin, T. Davis, J. (2009). Intellectual Property Law Text, Cases and Materials. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bently, L. Sherman, B. (2008). Intellectual Property Law. 3rd edn, New York: Oxford University Press.

Bonadio, E. (2010). Medical Methods, Risks to Public Health and Exclusion from Patentability. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2.

Crowne, EA. (2011). Methods of Medical Treatment Still Unpatentable in Canada. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 6 (4).

Macedo, CR. Michael, J. Kasdan, D. Goldberg, P. (2013). Isolated Human Genes and Related Therapeutic Treatment Methods Held Patent-Eligible. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 8 (2).

Verkey, E. (2007). Patenting of Medical Methods – Need of the Hour. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2 (2).

Miller, TR. (1996). International Suture: A Comparative Approach to Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. 78.

Nordberg, A. (2015). Patentability of Methods of Human Enhancement. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 10 (1).

Odell-West, A. (2008). Protecting Surgeons and their Art. Methods for Treatment of the Human Body by Surgery under Article 52(4) EPC. European Intellectual Property Review. 30 (3).

Schweizer, M. (2011). Imaging Method Used During Treatment by Surgery Patentable. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 6 (3).

Ventose, ED. (2007). Exclusion of Methods for Treatment of the Human or Animal Body by Surgery from Patent Protection. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2 (9).

Ventose, ED. (2008a). Patent Protection for Methods of Medical Treatment in the United Kingdom. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 58.

Ventose, ED. (2008b). Patent Protection for Surgical Methods under the European Patent Convention. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 39.

Ventose, ED. (2009). Disclaiming Methods of Medical Treatment from Patent Protection under the European Patent Convention. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 4 (10).

Ventose, ED. (2010). The Enlarged Board of Appeal Rules on the Scope of the Exclusion from Patent Protection for Methods for Treatment of the Human or Animal Body by Surgery. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 5 (6).

Ventose, ED. (2011). Patenting Surgical Methods in Europe after MEDI-PHYSICS. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 6 (2).

Ventose, ED. (2012). Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment in the USA. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 7 (2).

آرای دادگاه‌ها:

CAMTECH A.S. (T 0005/04) [2006].

Contraceptive method (T 0820/92) [1994].

CYGNUS/Diagnostic method (G 01/04) [2006].

Diagnostic methods G 01/04 (2006) OJ EPO 334 (EBA).

Eisai/Second Medical Indication (G 05/83) [1979-85] E.P.O.R. B241.

EXPANDABLE GRAFTS/Surgical device (T 0775/97) [2001].

GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP/Hair removal method (T 0383/03) [2004].

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY/Pericardial access (T 0035/99) [1999].

John Wyeth Application [1985] R.P.C. 545.

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV (T 0009/04) [2006].

MAQUET Critical Care AB (T 1102/02) [2006].

MEDI-PHYSICS/Treatment by surgery (G 0001/07) [2010].

MEDI-PHYSICS/Treatment by surgery (T 0992/03) [2006].

PPG/Disclaimer (G 0001/03) [2004].

ROUSSEL-CULAF/Thenoyl peroxide (T 0036/83) [1985].

SEE-SHELL/Blood flow (T 0182/90) [1993].

TELECTRONICS/Pacer (T 0712/93) [1997].

THERMAGE/Apparatus for skin resurfacing (T 1172/03) [2005].

Thompson/Cornea (T 24/91) [1996].

UNILEVER/Disclaimer (T 0323/97) [2001].

معاهدات بین‌المللی:

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (adopted 15 April 1994; entered into force 1 January 1995) LT/UR/A-1C/IP/1.

Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC). (2000). Entered into force on 13 December 2007.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22037/bj.v5i15.14139

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY-NC 4.0. Copyright © 2016 Bioethics Journal (Quarterly). All rights reserved.  All credits and honors to PKP for their OJS.

For Author | Online Submission | About Contact