研究生: |
林怡芊 Yi-Chien Lin |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
歐盟98/44號生物技術發明保護指令中專利適格標的之研究 The patentable subject matter in Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions |
指導教授: |
謝銘洋 教授
Prof. Ming-Yan Shieh |
口試委員: | |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
科技管理學院 - 科技法律研究所 Institute of Law for Science and Technology |
論文出版年: | 2004 |
畢業學年度: | 92 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 89 |
中文關鍵詞: | 可專利性 、專利適格標的 、C377-98 、98/44號指令 、生物技術 |
外文關鍵詞: | Patentability, Subject Matter, 98/44/EC, Biotechnology, C377-98 |
相關次數: | 點閱:2 下載:0 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
現代生物科技產業已經成為許多國家之產業推動的趨勢,並被視為典型之知識經濟型產業,然而對其影響甚鉅之專利制度在技術領域當中,於要件適用及意識形態都有必須加以詮釋探究之處。特別係生物技術相關發明於適用傳統專利法時,因牽涉生命、倫理等主觀價值判斷問題、以及「發明」與「發現」之判定不易等困擾,故專利法體制須有所調整以適應當前社會觀念及產業需求。歐盟除考量上述原因之外,亦斟酌經濟上之需求,歷經十年而於西元一九九八年通過歐盟「98/44號生物技術發明保護指令」,而指令之主要目標即係為將歐盟所有會員國之生技發明專利制度一致化以促進歐盟法規之統一。不過目前完全施行之國家僅有英國、愛爾蘭、芬蘭、西班牙、葡萄牙、丹麥與希臘七國,未轉換施行之國家對於指令中專利適格標的之規範,仍質疑其是否有侵害人類基本權利之嫌,另外,條文中之名詞用語,例如「動物品種」、「公共秩序與道德」等亦未有一致定義。本文主要目標係整理指令可專利性規定中尚具討論或解釋空間的規範狀態,包括「植物品種」、「主要生物學方法」、「動物品種」、「公共秩序或道德」、「人體組成成分」之法律規範,並補充相關案例與學者見解,提出本文對指令中部分規定或法律爭議處之意見。
Modern biotech-industry, one of the classical industries of knowledge-based economies, is supposed to be the key component in the global trend many countries devoting in. Patent law is the major legal system concerning biotech-related intellectual property right. The present concepts or ideology in the structure of the patent law leave the zones overlapping biotechnology in a great obscure condition. Since biotechnological inventions, while being applied in conventional patent law, involve some extremely complicated concerns, such as diverse and even contradicting viewpoints of life or various ethics with quite different values and beliefs, and the established criteria for patent law is becoming disputable, we must try to investigate the rationality of the patent law legislation or the impacts on the society, economy humanity, legal system, etc, resulted from the interaction of modern biotechnology and patent law.
In regard with the above-mentioned concern, European Union (EU) based on the consideration of the needs both of economy and respects, finally legislated Directive 98/44/EC to provide a clear and determinative legal protection for biotechnological inventions on 1998. The goal of the aforesaid act, Directive 98/44/EC, is to establish a more unambiguous standard for all the EU members to adjust her patent law system in respect of biotechnological inventions. But till now, there are only seven EU members, including England, Ireland, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and Greece, have internalized the concepts of Directive 98/44/EC in their own national patent law system. One of the oppositions concerns the subject matter is that patenting the biotech-related subject mater could infringe the human rights and dignity. Moreover, some terms in Directive 98/44/EC, such as “animal variety” or ” order public or morality”, are more an uncertain rather than explicit concepts.
The objective of the present thesis is to study some disputable issues in Directive 98/44/EC that still wait for being explained, such as “plant variety”, ”animal variety”, “essentially biological process”, ”order public or morality” and ”an element of the human body”. In preparing the present thesis, relevant cases and scholars’ opinions are introduced as well, and finally my opinions are brought up.
英文資料
1. Robin Nott,「"You Did It !": The European Biotechnology Directive At Last」,E.I.P.R.,1998, p. 351。
2. Action brought on October 1998 by Kingdom of the Netherlands against European Parliament and Council of the European Union,O.J.C378/13,1998。
3. Li Westerlund, Biotech Patents-Equivalence and Exclusions under European and U.S. Patent Law, 2001.2.16,p284-285。
4. Commission of The European Communities,Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council---An assessment of the implications for basic genetic engineering research of failure to publish, or late publication of, papers on subjects which could be patentable as required under Article 16(b) of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, COM(2002) 2 final。
5. Commission of The European Communities,Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council--- Development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering,COM(2002) 545 final。
6. The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission,Opinion on the ethical aspects of genetic testing in the workplace,28th,2003.7。
7. Implementation of DIRECTIVE 98/44/EC on the Legal Protection of Biotechnology Inventions,請參考網址:http://www.ebe-efpia.org/biopatdir.htm,2004.2.6。
8. Legal protection: biotechnological inventions,請參考網址:http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26026.htm ,2004.2.23。
9. "Edinburgh" patent limited after European Patent Office opposition hearing,網址:http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2002_07_24_e.htm ,刊登於2002.7.24。
10. Led Astray by the Moral : Incorporating Morality into European Union Biotechnology Patent Law, 19 Berkeley Journal of International Law 1,2001。
11. Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Case C-377/98,Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2001.6.14。
中文資料
1. MICHAEL E. PORTER, THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF NATIONS, (The Free Press,1st ed, 1990),李明軒、邱如美譯,《國家競爭優勢 上》,天下文化,1996初版,第113~115頁。
2. 陳哲宏、陳逸南、謝銘洋與徐宏昇合著,《專利法解讀》,元照出版公司,1997.7.初版,第14~16頁。
3. 謝銘洋,智慧財產權之理論基礎,翰蘆圖書出版公司,1997.10,第二版,第5~19,57~60頁。
4. 蔡明誠,發明專利法研究,第二版,1998,第53~56頁、第69~90頁。
5. 黃文儀,專利實務(第一冊),三民書局,2000.1,第二版,第293~295頁。
6. 李文琦,基因可專利性之研究:以美國專利制度為中心,東吳大學法律學系
研究所碩士論文,2000.7。
7. 李震山,基本權利之衝突,《月旦法學教室》公法篇,元照出版社,2000.9,第20頁以下。
8. 李素華,歐盟人類胚胎複製研究之法律爭議,科技法律透析,第12卷第12期,2000.12,第7-8頁。
9. 閻啟泰,生物發明之可專利性—基因改造植物、轉殖基因動物與人類胚胎細胞複製,2000全國科技法律研討會論文集。
10. 劉銀良、李樺佩,由美國及國際法之觀點談生物技術發明的可專利性及其道
德限制,東吳法律學報,第12卷第2期,2000.12。
11. 張仁平,台灣生物技術專利保護之回顧與前瞻(上),萬國法律,第115期,2001.2,第81頁。
12. 閻啟泰,生物發明專利概論,台大生物醫學期刊,第6期,2001.3。
13. 李素華,區域性專利制度整合之國際趨勢—歐洲專利公約及共同體專利制度,智慧財產權管理,2001.12。
14.全球生技產業排名,生技產業白皮書(2002),經濟部工業局,2002,第11頁。
15.何建志,基因專利違反道德?,應用倫理研究通訊,第27期,2003.7,可參考網址:http://www.bio.idv.tw/data/data2/2003070101.htm 。
16.曾淑瑜,生命科學與法規範之調和,翰蘆圖書,2003.8初版,第2~3頁。
17.劉棠必,研究除外原則在專利法架構下之問題研究--以我國現階生物科技學術研發之特質為例,國立清華大學科技法律所碩士論文,2003。
18.陳昭華,不予發明專利範圍之探討---以動、植物、微生物及其育成方法為中心,月旦法學教室,第14期,2003.11.15,第109 ~116頁。
19.楊崇森,專利法理論與應用,三民,初版,2003,第3頁;John McMillan, Reinventing the Bazaar,(W.W. Norton & Company,1th ,2002.10),羅耀宗 譯,新競爭時代,時報,初版,2003.1.2,第165頁。
20.生物技術的發展與未來,http://juang.bst.ntu.edu.tw/JRH/biotech2X.htm ,刊登於2004.1.23。
21.John McMillan, Reinventing the Bazaar,(W.W. Norton & Company,1th ,2002.10),羅耀宗 譯,新競爭時代,時報出版社,初版,2003.1.2,第162~167頁。
22.王世仁、王室堯編著,智慧財產權剖析-論生物科技專利策略與實務,全華科技圖書有限公司,初版,2003.6,第3頁。
23.朱世霓,歐盟關於生技產業研發成果保護之法制趨勢,法務透析,刊於90年12月,第5頁。
24.李素華、朱俊銘,歐洲關於植物品種保護之法制與實務案件解析,發表於2002年專利法保護值物品種法制趨勢研討會,2002.12.17。