Patenting human DNA sequences in Europe and the US - A comparative analysis of patentability requirements for nucleic acid sequences with special emphasis on novelty and inventive step

摘要: On 7 March 1953 two young scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick, announced to fellow patrons of the Eagle pub in Cambridge that they had found “the secret life”. Then, on 25 April 1953, published an article famous Nature magazine announced: “We wish suggest a structure for salt deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A). This has novel features which are considerable biological interest.” What Crick suggested their short - model clarity, precision British understatement was winding double helix DNA immediately how would replicate itself. Less than 900 words later concluded same page with simple sentence: “It not escaped our notice specific pairing we have postulated suggests possible copying mechanism genetic material.” Their proposed great beauty simplicity, fitted experimental data available, so it soon accepted as correct. While this paper can be regarded first step into new era genetics, is presently at centre storm. On one hand, breathtaking development related sciences during last decades led technological medical revolution. Due far reaching possibilities connected technology, focus many people’s interest source hope day will find cures terrible illnesses. Unsurprisingly, biotechnological science time become very important economic factor global business. other public been made much more concerned about level knowledge human blueprint applied commercialized. These debates highly emotional. particularly regard question whether should patent DNA. In often heated debate subject there are, by large, schools thoughts. The convinced simply chemical compound, albeit complex one, takes view must grant patents DNA, any compound. The approach taken US European authorities basically follows line thinking consequently (human) routine. second school thought sees pure structure. They argue embodiment incarnation code life part common heritage mankind. believe form appropriation or absolutely wrong. Both points bogged down own logic seems extremely difficult compromise. Moreover continuing among those who support sequences over threshold-requirements receiving such patent, appropriate extent its entitlements preclusive effects. Especially issue partial (ESTs SNPs) whose functions applications fully specified heavily discussed, since may chilling effect beneficial research. The purpose my PhD scrutinize latter debate. I want investigate different patenting (and perhaps even licensing) technology Europe. main goal research balance arguments parties involved patents, order outline reasonable legal lead acceptable compromise combine interests necessary freedom effective product field healthcare. Naturally involve thorough examination scope protection given various inventions respective offices. This licentiate thesis represents sections doctoral project deals basic patentability requirements indirect namely patentable matter novelty inventive step.