...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of World Intellectual Property >The Exhaustion Doctrine and Genetic Use Restriction Technologies: A Look at Bowman v Monsanto
【24h】

The Exhaustion Doctrine and Genetic Use Restriction Technologies: A Look at Bowman v Monsanto

机译:穷竭主义和遗传使用限制技术:鲍曼诉孟山都案

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The relationship between intellectual property rights and technologies used to protect such rights has been gaining more and more attention in recent years. This has mostly been in the field of copyright and digital rights management technologies (DRMs). However, challenges raised by certain biotechnologies and their inherent reproductive nature have caused patent and plant variety right (PVR) owners to similarly create genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) to protect their rights. Arguments analogous to those raised in the copyright arena have been made that GURTs exceed the rights of patentees and PVR owners, and prevent permitted uses from being undertaken. This article discusses these arguments in light of recent case law on the exhaustion doctrine, exactly what it is that GURTs do and the permitted uses in patent and PVR law. It concludes that the US Supreme Court decision Monsanto v Bowman, along with the nature of GURTs, the patent specification and the limited exceptions to patent infringement, mean that GURTs actually fit well with patent law and policy. However, the same cannot be said about GURTs used to protect PVRs, due to the different standards for registration and more extensive exceptions to infringement.
机译:近年来,知识产权与用于保护此类技术的技术之间的关系越来越受到关注。这主要是在版权和数字版权管理技术(DRM)领域。但是,某些生物技术及其固有的繁殖性质引发的挑战已导致专利和植物品种权(PVR)所有者同样创建了遗传使用限制技术(GURT)以保护其权利。有人提出了与版权领域类似的论点,即GURT超越了专利权人和PVR所有者的权利,并阻止了许可使用。本文根据有关穷竭原则的最新判例法,GURT的用途以及专利法和PVR法中的允许用途来讨论这些论点。结论是,美国最高法院的孟山都诉鲍曼案,再加上GURT的性质,专利说明书以及专利侵权的有限例外,意味着GURT实际上符合专利法和政策。但是,由于不同的注册标准和更广泛的侵权例外,用于保护PVR的GURT却不能说同样的话。

著录项

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