Legal Research on Gene Science and Technology——Does Gene Belong to Invention or Discovery

李晓霓,李晓农,刘瑞爽,王岳

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19752/j.cnki.1004-6607.2005.04.005

2005-01-01

Abstract:Does gene belong to invention or discovery? This is a very important problem that most gene experts have to face. The authors think that gene ought to be given the patent. We need not to argue that gene belong to invention or discovery.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Legal Protection of China's Biotechnology Patents

Ming Hu,Jiao Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2014.9988

2014-01-01

Biotechnology Law Report

Abstract:Biotechnology Law ReportVol. 33, No. 3 Original ArticlesLegal Protection of China's Biotechnology PatentsMing Hu and Jiao FengMing HuSearch for more papers by this author and Jiao FengSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:16 Jun 2014https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2014.9988AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View articleFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 33Issue 3Jun 2014 InformationCopyright 2014, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Ming Hu and Jiao Feng.Legal Protection of China's Biotechnology Patents.Biotechnology Law Report.Jun 2014.103-107.http://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2014.9988Published in Volume: 33 Issue 3: June 16, 2014Online Ahead of Print:April 14, 2014PDF download
Patenting Human Genes: Chinese Academic Articles’ Portrayal of Gene Patents

G MOSS,S COHEN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0271-8

2018-01-01

BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:Background: The patenting of human genes has been the subject of debate for decades. While China has gradually come to play an important role in the global genomics-based testing and treatment market, little is known about Chinese scholars' perspectives on patent protection for human genes. Methods: A content analysis of academic literature was conducted to identify Chinese scholars' concerns regarding gene patents, including benefits and risks of patenting human genes, attitudes that researchers hold towards gene patenting, and any legal and policy recommendations offered for the gene patent regime in China. Results: 57.2% of articles were written by law professors, but scholars from health sciences, liberal arts, and ethics also participated in discussions on gene patent issues. While discussions of benefits and risks were relatively balanced in the articles, 63.5% of the articles favored gene patenting in general and, of the articles (n = 41) that explored gene patents in the Chinese context, 90.2% supported patent protections for human genes in China. The patentability of human genes was discussed in 33 articles, and 75.8% of these articles reached the conclusion that human genes are patentable. Conclusion: Chinese scholars view the patent regime as an important legal tool to protect the interests of inventors and inventions as well as the genetic resources of China. As such, many scholars support a gene patent system in China. These attitudes towards gene patents remain unchanged following the court ruling in the Myriad case in 2013, but arguments have been raised about the scope of gene patents, in particular that the increasing numbers of gene patents may negatively impact public health in China.
Genome research: fulfilling the public's expectations for knowledge and commercialization

R G Adler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1502557

IF: 56.9

1992-08-14

Science

Abstract:This article provides a historical perspective for the patenting of gene sequences and describes the fundamentals and evolution of patent law. It summarizes federal technology transfer law and policy and assesses the impacts of patenting on academic research. The patentability of gene sequences is then considered along with potential impacts that published sequence data may have on obtaining patent protection for downstream products. Industry's position on gene patenting is summarized and perspectives from the emerging public record on these issues are presented. The article discussing points at which the filing of patent applications and the licensing of patents may be appropriate. It concludes that technology transfer policies for genome research must be adopted carefully so that they remain viable in a time of rapid technological change.
Research on The Copyright Law of Artificial Intelligence Generation

Shen Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54691/fhss.v3i4.4730

2023-04-20

Abstract:With the continuous development and innovation of science and technology in the current era, at this point, artificial intelligence has been able to generate all kinds of "works" like human beings, which has produced many new intellectual property legal issues in the field of artificial intelligence, which also put forward new legal challenges for its protection. What kind of protection should be given to artificial intelligence products, its copyright, the ownership of the rights of products is the issue of this paper. At present, the author believes that two preconditions should be made clear: first, the "works" of artificial intelligence products are regarded as copyright-protected works from its legal qualitative understanding; Second, the copyright of AI products should be owned by AI investors and users. On this basis, relevant legal protection mechanisms should be established to reduce legal disputes caused by artificial intelligence products.

Computer Science,Law
Gene patenting and licensing: the role of academic researchers and advocacy groups

David H Ledbetter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181729dab

Abstract:The subject of human gene patenting has received a great deal of media attention, and many individuals and professional societies (including the American College of Medical Genetics) have voiced strong opinions against the patenting of human genes. A particular concern of the medical genetics community is the impact of gene patenting on accessibility to high-quality genetic testing. There has been significantly less media attention and public discussion of licensing practices (e.g., exclusive versus nonexclusive) and their role in promoting or limiting access to genetic testing. Current US government policy strongly encourages universities to commercialize inventions funded by federal grants (Bayh-Dole Act, 1980). Best Practice models for technology licensing have recently been developed by the National Institutes of Health and by the Association of University Technology Managers, and strongly encourage nonexclusive licensing strategies except in cases where this model will not lead to successful commercialization. In the case of genetic testing, nonexclusive licensing strategies (e.g., CF gene) have the significant advantages of encouraging multiple laboratories to make the test readily available, encouraging test improvement, and creating cost-competition. Individual investigators involved in gene discovery, and patient advocacy groups collaborating with academic investigators, have the opportunity to influence the accessibility of diagnostic testing by strongly encouraging their institutions to follow the National Institutes of Health and Association of University Technology Managers Best Practice models of nonexclusive licensing for diagnostic rights to human gene patents.
Commercialization of the gene-edited crop and morality: challenges from the liberal patent law and the strict GMO law in the EU

Li Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2019.1686968

2019-11-21

New Genetics and Society

Abstract:The EU aspires to utilize the economic advantages of gene-editing technology on one hand and ensure human health and environmental safety on the other. Surrounding the fierce debates over emerging gene-edited plant, the current debate focused on the issue of whether the gene-edited crop should be within or outside the GMO law and its implication for innovation. It should not be forgotten that it is also involved in the complex patentability issues pertaining to the legal interpretation of the patent law. The gene-edited crop is governed by GMO regulations due to its potential risk to human health and environmental safety. But it is heavily patented, as patent regulations ignore its potential risk. This article examines the discrepancy of the gene-edited crop between the existing GMO law and the patent law and reveals the challenges to current EU jurisdiction, including the international trade impediment challenge, the patent monopoly challenge, the market confusion challenge, and the agricultural economy suspension challenge. In the end, this article argues that EU GMO regulations should be bridged with a patent system in facing the regulatory challenges from the gene-edited crop.

genetics & heredity,social sciences, biomedical,history & philosophy of science,biotechnology & applied microbiology,social issues
The Protection and Utilization of Transgenic Intellectual Property Rights in China:Problems and Suggestions

Jinyang Cai,Ruifa Hu,Jikun Huang,Xiaobing Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-7695.2018.05.023

2018-01-01

Abstract:Using the data from 493 research teams in 197 research institutes,we analyze scientists' knowledge,protection and utilization of intellectual property.The results suggest that:the percentage of scientists' awareness of the patent status of externally sourced genes and research tools was 72％ and 61％,respectively.Although scientists didn't circumvent 78％ of research tools during their researches,the legal use of external sourced genes and research tools through protocol uses reached 88％ and 70％,respectively.We also find that scientists with a strong mandate of generating genetically modified crops for commercialization had better knowledge and paid more attention to the patent status of externally sourced genes and research tools.In order to avoid potential dispute in intellectual property,the government should enhance the protection and utilization of intellectual property and establish the technology transfer office in the public research institutes.
Study on the Attribution of Rights in Generative Artificial Intelligence Works

Jiacheng Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jike.202304203

2023-06-01

Abstract:In modern life with ever-changing science and technology, artificial intelligence has become more and more popular, existing in all aspects of people's lives, playing an important and difficult to replace role. However, the lag of the law leads to the fact that it can not solve all disputes, especially in the copyright ownership of artificial intelligence works, whether it is infringement, contract disputes or copyright protection. It is an urgent problem to be solved. Because most of the disputes in the present stage of artificial intelligence are in the aspect of economic property, this paper discusses the ownership of the rights of works from the perspective of law and economics and economic principles. Based on the incentive principle in economics, the feasible path in academic research and the subject of legal responsibility, this paper should ascribe its rights to investors. However, in order to avoid conflicts between the right to use and the right to publish, the node where the user "pays fees" should be regarded as the investor's transfer of the ownership of the work in a "silent" way. If the investment company refuses, it shall do so in an express manner.
Framing Ethical Concerns and Attitudes Towards Human Gene Patents in the Chinese Press

Du Li,C&C Lawyers & Notaries,Kamenova Kalina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00136-0

2020-01-01

Asian Bioethics Review

Abstract:This study examines the representations of human gene patents in Chinese newspapers. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of news articles published between 2006 and 2017 to identify the major themes in media coverage, ethical considerations, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes towards the patentability of human genes. The results show that two key ethical concerns were expressed by journalists: (1) that it is morally wrong to own or patent human genes and (2) that gene patents could potentially impede patients’ access to healthcare services. Nonetheless, the press coverage has tended to be largely favorable (57.8%), rather than opposed (17.8%) to human gene patenting. There were no normative claims that human genes should not be patentable in China, which indicates a generally positive attitude towards patentability in media discourse. Most articles that expressed criticism toward gene patenting discussed challenges in other countries, with significant attention given to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the Myriad case that invalidated Myriad Genetics’ patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Overall, the newspapers were uncritical of the Chinese gene patenting regime. News reporting on the issue was highly suggestive of a strong pro-commercialization stance, although some discussions emphasized potential risks over benefits. Our analysis highlights the need for balanced media reporting on human gene patents in China and a top-down approach to engage the public in substantive discussions on the ethical and societal implications of the existing patent regime.
International conflicts over patenting human DNA sequences in the United States and the European Union: an argument for compulsory licensing and a fair-use exemption

D M Gitter

Abstract:The thought of a large biotech company holding an exclusive right to research and manipulate human genetic material provokes many reactions--from moral revulsion to enthusiasm about the possibilities for therapeutic advancement. While most agree that such a right must exist, debate continues over the appropriate extent of its entitlements and preclusive effects. In this Article, Professor Donna Gitter addresses this multidimensional problem of patents on human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequences in the United States and the European Union. Professor Gitter chronicles not only the development of the law in this area, but also the array of policy and moral arguments that proponents and detractors of such patents raise. She emphasizes the specific issue of patents on DNA sequences whose function has not fully been identified, and the chilling effect these patents may have on beneficial research. From this discussion emerges a troubling realization: While the legal framework governing "life patents" may be similar in the United States and the European Union, the public perceptions and attitudes toward them are not. Professor Gitter thus proposes a dual reform: a compulsory licensing regime requiring holders of DNA sequence patents to license them to commercial researchers, in return for a royalty keyed to the financial success of the product that the licensee develops; and an experimental-use exemption from this regime for government and nonprofit researchers.
Prior Consents: Preventing Offensive Genetic Engineering Patents Against Indigenous People's Rights

Haoliang Wu,Bingbin Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1535-1653.1169

2005-01-01

Global Jurist Frontiers

Abstract:Genetic engineering is one of the most advanced technologies in the world and can bring vast profits to developers by patenting resultant achievements. But genetic engineering must be based on original genetic materials. For obtaining such materials, developers travel around the world, especially to genetically rich areas in developing countries, to prospect for valuable genetic resources and bring back for research and patent derivate products. However a lot of disputes have arisen from such patents, such as the Enola patent dispute on Mexican traditional crop mayocoba bean and the patent dispute on sacred plant Ayahuasca between people and one U.S. Company. Indigenous people, who live in the origin areas of genetic resources for a long history, have established traditional and cultural genuine relation with some living species. These disputes revealed that some genetic engineering exploitation and patents based on certain species may be severely offensive against indigenous peoples spiritual, religious, or cultural traditions. Although genetic engineering achievements patentability has been argued for a long time, the TRIPs Agreement requirement and the worlds legislation trend, either in developed countries such as the U.S., European Union or in developing countries such as China, have indicated that genetic engineering products and processes are legitimately patentable. But some loophole exists in the patent acquisition procedure of current legislation, which allows such offensive patents to be granted. To prevent such offensive patents, one prior consents solution is proposed in this article, which requires genetic engineering developers to obtain prior consents from origin countries of genetic resources before they exploit these resources and patent derivate achievements. This solution is based on the Convention on Biological Diversity, which affirmed countrys sovereignty over their genetic resources and allowed countries to regulate and manage genetic resources in their territory. The Convention on Biological Diversity does not conflict with IPR legislation, in particular the TRIPs Agreement and the obligations under both treaties should be respected. The implementation of this proposed solution is based on the establishment of national genetic resources authority, which generally manages its countrys genetic resources and works as indigenous peoples representative with the authorization of state government. This solution should be implemented in three levels: domestically, transnationally and globally. Therefore, offensive genetic engineering patents could be prevented both by such authoritys examination and granting prior consents before developers access to genetic resources and by national patent administrations examination on prior consents proof from origin countrys authority before granting patents.
Technology Forecasting based on Topic Analysis and Social Network Analysis: A Case Study Focusing on Gene Editing Patents

Jia Liu,Jiaqi Wei,Yuqin Liu

2021-01-01

Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research

Abstract:Technology forecasting research is an indispensable means to master the development trend of technology and provide decision support for scientific research management. For patent documents, it does not provide keyword information, which makes the keyword based technology prediction method have some limitations in revealing research content and hidden topics in specific fields. In order to better reflect the technical information in the patent, this paper combines topic analysis and social network analysis to study the development trends of gene editing technology. First, the patent data of gene editing technology is collected from Derwent Innovations Index. Secondly, text mining software is adopted to draw a network graph of topic words, combined with Inverse Document Frequency (IDF) to construct a weighted adjacency matrix, and Social Network Analysis is used to obtain the degree of centrality of technical topic words. Finally, the technological trends of gene editing technology is explored by identifying the core themes of gene editing, highlighting themes and emerging themes, and some meaningful conclusions are also obtained. Based on the analysis results, this study finds that the development of gene editing technology is limited by factors such as ethics, law and cellular pollution. In addition, future research directions will be more inclined to optimize the safety and efficiency of gene editing technology.
Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law

Robin Feldman

Abstract:Whatever else I might own in this world, it would seem intuitively obvious that I own the cells of my body. Where else could the notion of ownership begin, other than with the components of the tangible corpus that all would recognize as "me"? The law, however, does not view the issue so neatly and clearly, particularly when cells are no longer in my body. As so often happens in law, we have reached this point, not by design, but by the piecemeal development of disparate notions that, when gathered together, form a strange and disconcerting picture. This Article examines both property and intellectual property doctrines in relation to human cells that are no longer within the body. In particular, the Article discusses the Bilski decision, in the context of life science process patents, and the Molecular Pathology case, in the context of gene patents. For patent law, the Article concludes that the problem lies not with the fact that genes constitute patentable subject matter, but rather with the extent of the rights that are granted. For both property and intellectual property law, the Article concludes that a more careful application of basic legal principles would better reflect the interests of society as a whole and the interests of individual human subjects, as well as the interests of those who innovate.
Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome

Heidi L Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/669706

2010-07-01

Abstract:Do intellectual property (IP) rights on existing technologies hinder subsequent innovation? Using newly-collected data on the sequencing of the human genome by the public Human Genome Project and the private firm Celera, this paper estimates the impact of Celera's gene-level IP on subsequent scientific research and product development. Genes initially sequenced by Celera were held with IP for up to two years, but moved into the public domain once re-sequenced by the public effort. Across a range of empirical specifications, I find evidence that Celera's IP led to reductions in subsequent scientific research and product development on the order of 20 to 30 percent. Taken together, these results suggest that Celera's short-term IP had persistent negative effects on subsequent innovation relative to a counterfactual of Celera genes having always been in the public domain.
The social life of genes: privacy, property and the new genetics

Margaret Everett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00007-2

Abstract:With the advent of the Human Genome Project and widespread fears over human cloning and medical privacy, a number of states have moved to protect genetic privacy. Oregon's unique Genetic Privacy Act of 1995, which declared that an individual had property rights to their DNA, has provoked national and international interest and controversy. This paper critically reviews the literature on genetic privacy and gene patenting from law, philosophy, science and anthropology. The debate in Oregon, from 1995 to 2001, illustrates many of the key issues in this emerging area. Both sides of the debate invoke the property metaphor, reinforcing deterministic assumptions and avoiding more fundamental questions about the integrity of the body and self-identity. The anthropological critique of the commodification of the body, and the concept of 'embodiment' are useful in analyzing the debate over DNA as property.
Biotechnology and law: biotechnology patents. Special considerations on the inventions with human material

Jürgen Simon

Abstract:The EC and the US differ considerably in their ruling on the patentability of biotechnological inventions apart from some exceptions. The most extreme positions in either direction with regard to the individual biotechnological inventions mark the margins of the scope which the WTO members may use for the ratification of Art. 27 TRIPS. Rulings which are not in accordance with Art. 27 TRIPS remain without consideration. In the most important point both WTO member agree: Human beings are not patentable. Other regulations could be considered, but one may assume that no member of the WTO intends to make use thereof. Thus the scope involving this option is only a theoretical one. The situation is different when it comes to the components of the human body. These may, provided they are produced artificially or are separated from the human body, be patented. According to the regulations in the US, this applies to all components with the exception of totipotent stem cells. They may be exempted from patenting entirely or their patenting is linked to far reaching conditions. As an example should be named here the regulation of the EPA for patenting gene sequences. The scope of this area is, thus, very great and allows for many options of applying the regulations of Art. 27 TRIPS. With regard to patenting procedures for cloning human beings, the scope is unlimited. These procedures may either be completely excluded from patenting as in the EC or may be considered patentable independent of their purpose as in the US. The same applies to procedures for gathering human stem cells in the US. Exempting procedures with regard to human genes or DNA sequences are, however, only possible in special cases, as for example in the EC with regard to procedures for altering the genetic identity of the germline of human beings. However, the interpretation of general patentability preconditions allows to influence the patenting of such procedures. This means, though, that the scope for interpretation is only a small one in this area.
To be or not IP? Exploring limits within patent law for the constitutionalization of intellectual property rights and the governance of synthetic biology in human health

Ingrid Schneider

Abstract:The article explores limits within patent law for the constitutionalization of Intellectual Property Rights and the governance of synthetic biology in human health. To this end, it starts by explaining the inherent rationales of two fundamental limits within European patent law, namely (1) the boundary between discovery and invention (Art. 52 EPC); (2) the ordre public and public policy clause (Art. 53 (a) EPC). Both these exclusions from patent eligibility bear a normative function but rely on opposing inherent logics, functions, and regulatory aims. While in the first type of logics, "enabling access for all" is the guiding principle, in the second, converse logics, no one should have access to the technological knowledge in question. The second part contends that decisions on whether and how to grant patents in synthetic biology are not independent from institutional frameworks: The arena in which synthetic biology patenting will be dealt with will be decisive for whether and how boundaries will be deployed. From a political science perspective, the administrative, legislative and judicial arena can be distinguished. If synthetic biology will be negotiated in the legislative arena, in particular in the European Parliament, the probabilities will be higher that either the discovery clause or the ordre public clause will be applied. In contrast, patent offices and courts have, at least in the past decades, employed a narrow interpretation of these absolute exemptions from patentability and hardly ever used them. The third part asserts that metaphoric framing of synthetic biology is another crucial factor for patentability questions. Semantic framing may relate to the articulation and mobilization of consent or dissent, and thus public acceptance of synthetic biology. Whether applications of synthetic biology are conceived as "natural" or "synthetic" DNA may have an influence on whether patenting might become contested as "patenting life" or accepted as novel, and also on passing the inventive step and industrial application tests. Proceeding in such a manner can be regarded as "upstreaming" ethics, anticipatory impact assessment, and policy analysis in the biosciences and as a tool for constitutionalizing intellectual property rights.
Ethic and patents: immiscible realities?

David Turgeon

Abstract:Intellectual Property ("IP") protection of the results of proteomics, genomics and other aspects of biomedical research can lead to significant issues and concerns. Some of these include whether (a) IP protection will impede research into future breakthroughs, (b) IP protection will increase the costs or decrease the access to new therapies or treatment modalities and (c) whether and how IP protection should recognize indigenous knowledge and genetic resources. As the chorus of apprehension is growing, this article will explore the issues and concerns raised by the intersection of new technologies and traditional IP protection.
Research on Intellectual Property Right Protection of Genetic Resources in China Under Benefit-Sharing

Bin Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2023.29301.bl

2023-03-23

Biotechnology Law Report

Abstract:Genetic resources are the foundation for the development of the life science industry, and benefit-sharing is internationally defined as an important regime for the use of genetic resources for all mankind's benefit. In the strategy of strengthening intellectual property rights (IPR), China clearly states that IPR legislation of genetic resources should be done in due course, and that the system of IPR protection of genetic resources and the system of access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing should be improved. Presently, the legislation is scattered and abstract, with insufficient operability and international integration, so it's urgent to optimize. On the one hand, it is necessary to improve China's IPR legislation of genetic resources for adapting to the development of China's genetic resources utilization technology and the practice of creation based on genetic resources, and to use IPR protection of genetic resources to restrict the illegal access of other countries to China's genetic resources through the benefit-sharing mechanism. On the other hand, the rules on prior informed consent and source disclosure in foreign countries should be taken into account, so as to prevent other countries from illegally controlling Chinese genetic resources and their derivatives under strict IPR application procedures for genetic resources.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Patents in the era of genomics: an overview

Dinesh Yadav,Gautam Anand,Amit Kumar Dubey,Shubhra Gupta,Sangeeta Yadav

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/187221512801327415

Abstract:The recent developments in biotechnology are the emerging science of "omics"- genomics, proteomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics. The state of the art sequencing technology has led to the deciphering of whole genome sequences of various microbes, plant, human and animals. The outcomes of genomics in the form of various genes, gene fragments, single nucleotide polymorphism, promoters and other regulatory sequences are a subject matter for patents based on its applications spanning agricultural, biomedical and industrial sectors. The patenting of genes and sequences is a debatable issue which has led to several controversies over recent years. With the accumulation of huge amount of sequences in various databases as a result of various genome sequencing projects worldwide, there is an immediate need for clarification of patenting genes and sequences. This review article gives an insight into patents based on development of genomics highlighting some of the patents based on deoxyribonucleic acid, genes, sequences and other related genetic material and gene technologies. Patents on single nucleotide polymorphism, stem cells, biomarkers for cancer diagnosis and treatment, microbial genes and plant genes are also discussed.

Legal Research on Gene Science and Technology——Does Gene Belong to Invention or Discovery

Legal Protection of China's Biotechnology Patents

Patenting Human Genes: Chinese Academic Articles’ Portrayal of Gene Patents

Genome research: fulfilling the public's expectations for knowledge and commercialization

Research on The Copyright Law of Artificial Intelligence Generation

Gene patenting and licensing: the role of academic researchers and advocacy groups

Commercialization of the gene-edited crop and morality: challenges from the liberal patent law and the strict GMO law in the EU

The Protection and Utilization of Transgenic Intellectual Property Rights in China:Problems and Suggestions

Study on the Attribution of Rights in Generative Artificial Intelligence Works

Framing Ethical Concerns and Attitudes Towards Human Gene Patents in the Chinese Press

International conflicts over patenting human DNA sequences in the United States and the European Union: an argument for compulsory licensing and a fair-use exemption

Prior Consents: Preventing Offensive Genetic Engineering Patents Against Indigenous People's Rights

Technology Forecasting based on Topic Analysis and Social Network Analysis: A Case Study Focusing on Gene Editing Patents

Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law

Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome

The social life of genes: privacy, property and the new genetics

Biotechnology and law: biotechnology patents. Special considerations on the inventions with human material

To be or not IP? Exploring limits within patent law for the constitutionalization of intellectual property rights and the governance of synthetic biology in human health

Ethic and patents: immiscible realities?

Research on Intellectual Property Right Protection of Genetic Resources in China Under Benefit-Sharing

Patents in the era of genomics: an overview