|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
World Intellectual Property Review
It is worth listening closely and with great care when the oral arguments start in November in the landmark case of Bilski v. Doll. The US Supreme Court will weigh in and look at this case involving whether a method for hedging risks in commodities trading is patentable. But the decision will cut to the heart of what defines patentable subject matter and will have deep implications for the wider world of intellectual property generally. In an age when innovation in science and technology moves at such a pace and breakthrough inventions can involve subatomic particles and terabytes, any idea of setting out black and white criteria for what is and is not patentable is likely impossible. This probably means that the courts will be more likely swayed by the economic arguments at stake. The pharmaceutical industry in particular will have a big influence over the case: without clear and uncompromised patent protection on their products and inventions, they are likely to say that they will be much less inclined to continue to invest billions researching new drugs. The problem with bringing the drug companies into the equation is that the debate quickly gets bogged down in the murky world of genetics—something so clearly natural that the idea of applying patents to genes goes against nature for many. Yet genes—or at least specific research into specific genes—have regularly been patented for the past 20 years or so, benefiting some but arguably slowing down the progress of others. So what exactly should be patentable and what should not? This is the weighty issue the court will ponder over in the coming months. Few would want to be in its shoes, and the IP industry will await a decision with baited breath. The outcome could mean a big adjustment for the IP industry. And that could also mean big changes for specific industries that rely on intellectual property and patents to protect their work and ensure they eventually reap what they would consider just rewards. It could also mean a big adjustment for many investors who will look carefully at where they put their money to work in light of any decisions stemming from this case. The reality is though that the industry probably need not ready itself for a decision that will have such profound implications. Probably, that is. Little in IP law is ever clearly black and white, and when it comes to terabits, subatomic particles and genes, it is getting ever less so. Expect more grey. But perhaps at least a grey the industry can more easily navigate. A decision is needed: whether it will be the right one will depend on your preferred shade of grey. Read our Annual Reviews FREE |
|||||||||||||||
|
