The exploitation of biotechnological inventions Essay Example

these areas. However, the fact that plants and animals fall under regulation by EPC Art 53(b) suggests that further evaluation is necessary in determining patentability. All of these issues must be considered when determining if certain inventions can be patented.The Oncomouse[10] case was the main focus of 53(a) at the EPO.

The ruling on the patentability of biological processes was established both before and after the introduction of EPC Rules in 2000. The EPO employs the utilitarian balance test to determine the morality of animal experimentation based on factors such as animal suffering, environmental risks, and benefits to mankind. If an invention causes unnecessary animal suffering, it is considered immoral and not patentable under Art.53(a) and Rule 28. However, product claims and product-by-process claims are not affected by this non-patentability from the EU and UK perspective. In a case involving Plant Genetic Systems, the EPO Opposition Division did not apply the cost-benefit test because there was insufficient evidence to support objections.Although it may be seen as controversial from an ethnic standpoint, the EPO's Technical Board of Appeal denied the opposition's motion and upheld the patent grant, citing the EPO's duty to protect the longstanding societal norms[14] of Europe, as well as to serve both public policy and science[15]. As a result, the EPO has taken on issues pertaining to public safety and physical integrity of individuals within society. In light of landmark cases, including Regina (in ex parte Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health[16], which expanded the definition of "embryo" beyond a live human embryo produced by fertilization to include an embryo created without such means, such as through cell nuclear replacement[17], another controversial topic

arises. Specifically, when it comes to stem cells obtained through the destruction of a human embryo, the EU takes a cautious approach to deny patentability in this area of research due to ethical concerns. On the other hand, the UK's argument presented to the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal in the WARF[18] case effectively balances ethics with the future possibilities of stem cell research.