Comparative Law of Protection of therapSeutic cloning innovations: United States and Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor of Law and Philosophy, Shahid Beheshti University, Head of Bio Law and Ethic Department, Avicenna Research Institute

2 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

3 PhD in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Therapeutic cloning has been able to take great steps in the field of treating diseases and regenerating tissues and organs of the human body by achieving new and innovative methods and processes. One of the important issues in the field of therapeutic cloning innovations is their support in the form of the patent system, which plays the main role in the development of such achievements. On the other hand, this development is impossible without private sector investment, which, in turn, will be possible with the existence of supportive legal frameworks. This article shows that the two patent rights systems of Iran and the United States of America have adopted different policies in supporting innovations in the field of therapeutic cloning. Iran's patent law system has only recognized the registration of a small part of the innovations in this field, i.e. the innovations related to the invention products or embryonic stem cells, as inventions. However, the patent rights system of the United States of America, based on the innovative interpretations of the judicial courts, supports the processes of differentiation and transformation of embryonic stem cells with the title of invention. Based on this, it seems that the optimal approach in Iran's legal system is to support the mentioned processes, which will be possible by providing a suitable interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations or their modification.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

جعفرزاده، میر قاسم و عمرانی، عرفان (1394). «چالش‌های اخلاقی حمایت از روش‌های علم پزشکی در حقوق اختراعات»، فصلنامه حقوق پزشکی (ویژه‌نامه حقوق مالکیت فکری)، شماره 4.
حبیبا، سعید و معلی، مهدی (1389). «کارکرد نظام حق اختراع در توسعه زیست‌فناوری، فصلنامه حقوق پزشکی»، سال 4، شماره 12.
عرفان‌منش، محمدحسین و عباسی، محمود (1394). «حمایت حقوقی از ابداعات فناوری سلول‌های بنیادی جنینی در نظام حق اختراع»، فصلنامه حقوق پزشکی، سال 9، شماره 35.
غلامی باغ‌طاوسی، سحر و پروین، محمدرضا (1399). «بررسی تطبیقی رهیافت‌های حقوقی ثبت اختراع سلول‌های بنیادی انسانی با تأکید بر رویه‌های قضایی اروپا و ایالات‌متحده»، فصلنامه حقوق پزشکی، سال 14، شماره 53.
References
Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1016 (1991), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Antonio Romito, Gilda Cobellis, Pluripotent Stem Cells: Current Understanding and Future Directions, Stem Cells International, 2016, https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2016/9451492, doi: 10.1155/2016/9451492.
Cloning Legislation in the South Korea, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2005, https: //digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol21/iss4/2/.
Constitution of the United States
Damon J. Whitaker, The Patentability of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Results, University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2002, https: //scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1516&context=jlpp.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), Supreme Court of the United States.
Erfanmanesh, Mohammad Hossein. Abbasi, Mahmoud. 2015. Legal protection of embryonic stem cell technology innovations in the patent system, Medical Law Quarterly, No.35, pp.21-22. (In persion).
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948), Supreme Court of the United States.
Gholami Bagh-Tavasi, Sahar. Parvin, Mohammad Reza. 2020. Comparative study of legal approaches to patenting human stem cells with emphasis on judicial procedures in Europe and the United States, Medical Law Quarterly, No.53, p.227. (In persion).
Good Samaritan Hospital v. Ohio Department of Health, 642 N.E.2d 1160, 1164 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
Habiba, Saeed. Moali, Mehdi. 2010. The Function of the Patent System in the Development of Biotechnology, Medical Law Quarterly, No.12, pp.29-42. (In persion).
In re Bergy, 563 F.2d 1031 (1977) Oct. 6, 1977, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem. Omrani, Erfan. 2010. Ethical Challenges of Supporting Medical Science Methods in Patent Law, Medical Law Quarterly (Intellectual Property Law Special Issue), No.4, p.47. (In persion).
James A. Thomson, Joseph Itskovitz-Eldor, Sander S. Shapiro, Michelle A. Waknitz, Jennifer J. Swiergiel, Vivienne S. Marshall, Jeffrey M. Jones, Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts, Science, New Series, Vol. 282, No. 5391, November 1998, https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9804556/, doi: 10.1126/science.282.5391.1145.
KHS Campbell, P Fisher, WC Chen, I Choi, RDW Kelly, J.H.Lee, J.Xhu, Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Past, present and future perspectives, Theriogenology, Volume 68, September 2007, https: //nmbu.brage.unit.no/nmbu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2497993/Thesis_MRR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Kresimir Pavelic, Arguments for Human therapeutic Cloning, Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, February 2004; 4(1), https: //pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7245529/, doi: 10.17305/bjbms.2004.3454
Leahy–Smith America Invents Act
Leeron Morad, Stemming the Tide: On the Patentability of Stem Cells and Differentiation Processes, New York University Law Review, Vol. 87, 2012, https: //nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-87-number-2/stemming-the-tide-on-the-patentability-of-stem-cells-and-differentiation-processes/.
Linda J. Demaine and Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Reinventing the Double Helix: A Novel and Nonobvious Reconceptualization of the Biotechnology Patent, Stanford Law Review, vol.55, 2002, https: //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1405456, DOI: 10.2307/1229595.
Mikyung, Kim, An Overview of the Regulation and Patentability of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the United States and Anti, https: //digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol21/iss4/2/.
Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.
PharmaStem Therapeutics v. Viacell, Inc., (2004), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18638.
Public Law No. 108-199, 108th Congress, JAN. 23, 2004
Rasekh, Mohammad, 2009. Biotechnology-Related Intellectual Property Law of Iran, Avicenna J Med Biotechnol, Vol.1, No. 2, https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23407745/.
Russell B. Korobkin, Stephen R. Munzer, Stem Cell Century: Law and Policy for a Breakthrough Technology, Yale University Press, 2007, https: //www.amazon.com/Stem-Cell-Century-Breakthrough-Technology/dp/0300122926.
Russell B. Korobkin, Stephen R. Munzer, Stem Cell Research and the Law, UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 06-05, January 2006, Available at SSRN: https: //ssrn.com/abstract=878392 or http: //dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.878392 .
Sarah E. Fendrick, Donald L. Zuhn, Jr., Patentability of Stem Cells in the United States, Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, vol.5, no.12, December 2015, https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26292987/, doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a020958.
Shogo Matoba, Yi Zhang, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Reprogramming: Mechanisms and Applications, Cell Stem Cell, Volume 23, Issue 4, October 2018, https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30033121/, doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.06.018.
The Patent Act of 1790.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics