Patentability and Morality
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Papastefanou, S. (2024). Patentability and Morality. A Comparative Perspective on How Legal Culture Shapes Morality within Patent Law. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58859-6
Papastefanou, Stefan. Patentability and Morality: A Comparative Perspective on How Legal Culture Shapes Morality within Patent Law. Duncker & Humblot, 2024. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58859-6
Papastefanou, S (2024): Patentability and Morality: A Comparative Perspective on How Legal Culture Shapes Morality within Patent Law, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58859-6
Format
Patentability and Morality
A Comparative Perspective on How Legal Culture Shapes Morality within Patent Law
Studien zum vergleichenden Privatrecht / Studies in Comparative Private Law, Vol. 22
(2024)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Dr. Stefan Papastefanou ist Dozent und Research Fellow am Center for Transnational IP, Media and Technology Law and Policy an der Bucerius Law School in Hamburg und Visiting Scholar am Applied Research Centre for Intellectual Assets and the Law in Asia (ARCIALA) an der Singapore Managemant University. Sein Forschungsschwerpunkt liegt auf internationalen IP-Beziehungen und der rechtsvergleichenden Analyse moderner Technologien und aktueller digitaler Entwicklungen, wie NFTs, Blockchain und KI-Forschung. Neben seiner Lehr- und Forschungstätigkeit ist Dr. Stefan Papastefanou als Rechtsanwalt im Hamburger Büro von White & Case LLP in der Abteilung IP/IT tätig.Abstract
The thesis is dedicated to the question of how legal culture affects the perception of morality in patent law regimes and whether a better understanding of the terms can ease their complex relationship. To this end, the role of moral considerations in European, German, US and Chinese patent law is analyzed. The analysis shows the unique and paradoxical relationship between immorality and illegality in patent law compared to other areas of law. Furthermore, it is found that the interpretation of the fundamental function of patent law significantly influences the understanding of morality in patent law. Therefore, a moral standard in patent law cannot be identified universally across different patent law systems. Consequently, (legal) cultural aspects must always be included in the interpretation of patent law. Ultimately, aspects of legal culture and societal interests can be balanced in a proportionality approach.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgements | 7 | ||
| Contents | 9 | ||
| Preamble | 15 | ||
| A. Introductory Remarks | 17 | ||
| I. Research Questions and Scientific Interest | 20 | ||
| II. Methodology and Content | 21 | ||
| 1. Methodological Approach | 21 | ||
| a) Methodological Structure | 23 | ||
| b) Concept of Ethics within the Thesis | 26 | ||
| 2. Scope | 27 | ||
| a) National Security and Patent Secrecy | 27 | ||
| b) European Unitary Patent | 27 | ||
| c) EU “Biotech Directive” | 27 | ||
| d) Theories of Law | 28 | ||
| e) Philosophical Approaches to Morality | 28 | ||
| f) Patentability Assessments of Specific Technologies | 29 | ||
| III. Overview of Sources | 29 | ||
| B. The Interplay of Technology and Morality | 32 | ||
| I. Examples of Recent Technological Development with Moral Considerations | 32 | ||
| 1. Biotechnology as a Trailblazer of Patent Morality | 33 | ||
| a) Basics of CRISPR Gene-Editing | 34 | ||
| b) Moral Debate Regarding CRISPR Gene-Editing | 35 | ||
| c) Similarities between CRISPR Gene-Editing and Stem-Cell Research | 38 | ||
| d) Summary | 40 | ||
| 2. Weapon Technology and Moral Concerns | 40 | ||
| a) Global Relevance of Modern Weapon Technology | 41 | ||
| b) Fundamental Differences to Conventional Weapon Technology | 43 | ||
| aa) Railgun Basics | 43 | ||
| bb) Laser Weapon System Basics | 44 | ||
| cc) Advantages of the Emerging Weapon Systems | 44 | ||
| c) Areas of Moral Concern | 45 | ||
| II. Potential Moral Considerations with Regard to Modern Weapon Technology | 45 | ||
| 1. Moral Concerns of the Heat Ray | 46 | ||
| 2. UN Convention CCW | 46 | ||
| 3. Significance of International Treaties | 47 | ||
| 4. Potential Violations of National Law | 48 | ||
| a) Potential Violation of Sect. 311, 309 StGB | 49 | ||
| b) Applicability | 49 | ||
| c) Ionizing Radiation | 50 | ||
| d) Potential to Violate Regulations on Ionizing Radiation | 51 | ||
| 5. Relationship of Legal Violations and Patentability | 51 | ||
| a) International Treaties and Patentability | 51 | ||
| b) National Law and Patentability | 52 | ||
| III. Conclusion | 53 | ||
| C. Moral Considerations in Patentability in European and German Patent Law | 55 | ||
| I. Art. 27 (2) TRIPS and Respective Regulations | 55 | ||
| 1. Relevance of Art. 27 (2) TRIPS for the Interpretation of Subsequent Regulation | 56 | ||
| 2. Regulatory Approaches in the EU and Germany | 58 | ||
| 3. Art. 53 (a) European Patent Convention | 58 | ||
| 4. Sect. 2 (1) PatG in German Law | 60 | ||
| II. Ordre Public and Morality on a European Level | 62 | ||
| 1. Determining the Meaning of Ordre Public and Morality | 62 | ||
| 2. Relevant Contracting States | 64 | ||
| a) Differences in the Understanding of Ordre Public within the EPC Contracting States | 66 | ||
| aa) Lowest Standard – Validity of the Patent in One Contracting State | 66 | ||
| (1) Comparison of Art. 53 EPC and Art. 139 EPC | 70 | ||
| (2) Relationship of EPO and National Interpretation | 70 | ||
| (3) Relevance of the Report by the EU Commission | 71 | ||
| bb) Medium Standard – Validity in the Designated State of the Application | 73 | ||
| cc) Strictest Standard – Validity in All Contracting States | 74 | ||
| b) Discussion of the Legal Arguments | 76 | ||
| c) Conclusion | 78 | ||
| 3. Jurisprudence | 78 | ||
| a) Brüstle Case | 79 | ||
| aa) Factual and Legal Background | 80 | ||
| bb) Legal Procedure | 81 | ||
| (1) Role of the European Court of Justice | 82 | ||
| (2) Referring the Case back to the German Federal Court of Justice | 83 | ||
| b) Analysis of the Reasoning | 84 | ||
| aa) Dogmatic Criticism of the Decision | 84 | ||
| bb) General Criticism of the EU Biotech Directive | 86 | ||
| 4. Conclusive Summary and Relevance | 87 | ||
| a) Fundamental Principles of Ordre Public or Morality | 88 | ||
| b) Characteristics of Human Dignity in Biotechnological Inventions | 88 | ||
| c) Specific Arguments Concerning Ethics in Biotechnological Inventions | 93 | ||
| d) Identifying Abstract Characteristics | 95 | ||
| III. Fundamental Considerations of Morality in German Legal Literature | 96 | ||
| 1. Factual and Legal Background of the German Provision | 96 | ||
| 2. General Considerations Regarding the Morality Provision | 97 | ||
| a) Fundamental Objections to the Provision | 97 | ||
| b) Arguing in favor of the Morality Provision | 100 | ||
| 3. Subject of the Examination Process | 101 | ||
| a) Relevant Moment and Geographic Scope | 102 | ||
| b) European Union vs European Unity | 104 | ||
| 4. Understanding Ordre Public in Morality in German Legal Culture | 105 | ||
| a) Ordre Public and Morality as Ethical Considerations | 107 | ||
| b) Ordre Public and Morality across the German Legal System | 111 | ||
| c) Morality as a Social Concept Instead of a Legal Concept | 113 | ||
| d) The Unique Relationship of Immorality and Illegality in Patent Law | 115 | ||
| e) Interim Result | 116 | ||
| f) Identifying Elements of Morality and Ordre Public in Patent Law | 117 | ||
| aa) Essential Constitutional Principles as a Significant Element? | 118 | ||
| bb) Approaches to Define Ordre Public in German Legal Literature | 120 | ||
| 5. Meaningful Distinction of Morality and Ordre Public? | 121 | ||
| a) Attempts to Distinguish between the two Terms | 121 | ||
| b) Concepts of Proportionality in Ordre Public and Morality | 124 | ||
| c) Technicality of Patents in Relation to Morality as an Independent Approach | 126 | ||
| d) Limitations of the Proposed Differences between Morality and Public Order | 126 | ||
| e) Conclusion | 129 | ||
| IV. Commercial Exploitation as a Requirement of Moral Violations | 130 | ||
| 1. TRIPS Considerations and the Term itself | 130 | ||
| 2. Standard for Commercial Use | 132 | ||
| a) German Jurisprudence Regarding Commercial Use | 133 | ||
| b) Legal Discussion of Commercial Use | 135 | ||
| c) Romandini's Case Group Solution | 137 | ||
| 3. Relevant Moment of Commercial Exploitations | 140 | ||
| a) Black Letter Analysis of Art. 53 EPC and Art. 27 (2) TRIPS | 140 | ||
| b) Black Letter Analysis of the German Patent Act | 143 | ||
| c) Interim Result | 145 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 145 | ||
| D. Patentability and Moral Concerns in U.S. Patent Law | 147 | ||
| I. Historic Development | 147 | ||
| 1. Genesis of the Moral Utility Doctrine | 148 | ||
| 2. Specific Decisions Regarding the Moral Utility Doctrine | 149 | ||
| a) Gambling Devices | 149 | ||
| aa) Legal Analysis of the Reasoning | 150 | ||
| bb) Historic Development of Morality with regard to Gambling Devices | 151 | ||
| b) Deceptive Devices or Devices with Mischievous Tendencies | 152 | ||
| aa) Legal Analysis of the Reasoning | 153 | ||
| bb) Decline of the Moral Utility Doctrine | 154 | ||
| 3. Recent Development and Status Quo | 155 | ||
| II. Rise of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering | 157 | ||
| 1. Jeremy Rifkin as the “Most Hated Man in Science” | 159 | ||
| 2. Re-Introducing Morality Concerns into U.S. Patent Law | 160 | ||
| 3. Myriad Breast Cancer Genes Patent Case | 162 | ||
| 4. Ultimate Place of Morality within the Patent Subject Matter Doctrine? | 166 | ||
| 5. Influence on Canadian Jurisprudence | 167 | ||
| III. The Role of Human Dignity in the U.S. Patent System | 170 | ||
| 1. Historical Development within the U.S. Legal System | 170 | ||
| a) Historical Background of the Introduction of Human Dignity | 171 | ||
| b) Legal Assessment of Human Dignity within the U.S. | 172 | ||
| c) Comparing U.S., German and European Approaches to Human Dignity | 174 | ||
| 2. Relevance of Human Dignity for the Patent Law System | 175 | ||
| a) Discussing the Legal Reasoning | 176 | ||
| b) Human Dignity in the Context of Biotechnology as a Precedent | 177 | ||
| 3. Summary | 178 | ||
| IV. Differences in Judicial Arguments | 179 | ||
| V. Morality and Patentability in Relation to State Powers | 180 | ||
| VI. Conclusion and Recommendations | 182 | ||
| E. Morality and Patentability in Chinese Patent Law | 184 | ||
| I. Chinese Legal Culture and Patent Law | 184 | ||
| II. Development of Patentability Concerns in China | 185 | ||
| III. Morality and Chinese Legal Culture | 187 | ||
| 1. Governmental Influence on the Legal Culture in China | 188 | ||
| 2. Moral Considerations in Chinese Culture | 189 | ||
| 3. Morality in the Context of Legal Culture | 191 | ||
| IV. Conclusion | 197 | ||
| F. Summary and Comprehensive Assessment | 199 | ||
| Bibliography | 204 | ||
| Index | 228 |