Article 53(b) EPC
A Challenge to the Novartis Theory of European Patent History
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9193913 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Justine Pila (European Union, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 72 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 436-462 |
| Publication date | 2009-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Modern Law Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0026-7961 • E-ISSN: 1468-2230 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00753.x |
| OpenAlex | W1986704311 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
The authoritative ( Novartis/transgenic plant systems ) interpretation of the Article 53(b) EPC exclusion from European patentability of plant and animal varieties, and essentially biological processes for the creation of plants and animals, is considered, and its significance for the trend of EPO jurisprudence and legitimacy of the EC Biotechnology Patenting Directive noted. The Enlarged Board of Appeal's justification for that interpretation in Novartis with reference to the exclusion's legislative history is challenged, and an alternative theory of that history proposed, based on a thorough analysis of the unpublished travaux préparatoires for the Strasbourg and European Patent Conventions. In addition to elucidating the framers' (actual and presumed) intent with respect to the Article 53(b) exclusion, that analysis offers an insight into post‐war legal unification methodology and its continued impact on one of the most contentious and technical areas of intellectual property law
Appeal · Directive · Intellectual property · Interpretation (philosophy) · Jurisprudence · Law and economics · Legislative history · Legitimacy · Patent law · Patentability · Political science · Sociology · Unification · Computer Science · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Intellectual Property and Patents · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.14 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2012 - 2013 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |