Keywords
ESTs, patent legislation, human genetic materials
Abstract
The following discussion will examine the utility requirement for patentability in the context of EST patents. Part I will provide background information regarding the utility requirement under patent law and will explain why it has been difficult to apply to ESTs. Part II will briefly examine how other jurisdictions, in particular the United States, have addressed the difficul- ties associated with applying the current utility require- ment to biological materials, in particular ESTs. Part III will look at how Canadian courts have interpreted and applied the utility requirement for patentability, and will suggest that ESTs have sufficient value to the scientific community to satisfy this requirement. In addition, it will examine how the doctrine of sound prediction may allow patent protection to be extended beyond the simple EST nucleotide sequence. This article will conclude by suggesting two reasons why the utility criterion for patentability has proven difficult to apply to human genetic materials.
The patenting of human genetic materials, including ESTs, raises a number of concerns apart from the question of whether they meet the utility requirement under patent legislation. Not only are there legal concerns in terms of whether such ‘‘inventions’’ are patentable subject-matter and whether they satisfy the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, but there are also important moral concerns. While all of these issues are clearly related and not completely separable, an examination of their intersection is beyond the scope of this article.
Recommended Citation
Natalie C. Bellefeuille, "ESTs under Canadian Patent Law: Useful or Not?" (2006) 5:2 CJLT.
Included in
Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons