Role of Nano Technology and Commercialisation of IPR Issues -Tiger Leaps for Nano technology Patenting in India
Keywords:
Nano technology,, cancer drugs,, pharmaceuticals,, utility patents,, TRIPS,, Strasbourg agreement,, 1979,, Sustainable Development.Abstract
There has arisen an unanswered question that does need foray and discussion in the field of Nano technology patenting as prevailing in India in the post TRIPS agreement 1994 (WTO / WIPO) regime whether Indian IPRS regime is not only equipped but well equipped to handle Nano technology suitably enough in terms of law and infrastructure to implement and launched the both themselves? Whether the regime strikes a super balance between public/social interests of inventions? After globalisation the sickness of regime has not been able to strike in consonance with globe. The paper attempts and seeks/or search to challenges which Nano technology patenting can essentially being addressed despite too much lack of vulnerability looms large in India.
Metrics
References
11 Michelecom Technology Review (2005) 117.
Tina Vasciangioli & wel-xian zhang - Environmental Technology at Nano scale Environment Science & Technology March 01, 2003 (103A).
Buck - Minister Fullerine Patent Data base – http://www.gadunov.com /Bucky patents html.
John R Allison at {valuable Patents – 92 Geography journal of law 435, 2004}.
Jenifer wash - burn university Inc.: The corporate corruption of American Higher Education (Basic Book New York 2004).
O Reilly vs Marco 56 US (15 How) 62,1853 & Funk brothers seed co. vs Kalo Inoulant 1948 (333) US.
Gotts Chalk vs Benson 409 US 63 (1972) & Parker Vs Flook 43 (1978).
447 US 303 (1980).
383 US (1) 1965.
In Re Deuel 51 F3d (Fed Cir.)1995. Also in Re Deuel 51 F3d 552 (Fed. Cir.) 1995.
Policy Levels of Patent Law 89 VAL Rev 1575 – 77 (2003).
93 (F3d) 1559 (Fed Circuit court) 1996.
National Human Genome Research Institute NHGRI (A brief Guide) to genomics. http://www.Genome.Gov18016863.
a. Francis Collin – What We know and don‟t about Real Ethnicity Genetics and Health at the Dawn of Genomic ERA – 36 Nature genetics Supp. 513 – 15 (2004).
b. Philip Ducor, Patenting - Recombinant product of bio technology molecules – 36 (1998).
Beth Quinlivan - Bio star turn Bus (WKLY) Rev Sept25, 2003 (Page 4).
Human Cloning Act (2002).
a F2d. 920 (Fed Cir.) 1991.
383 (US 519) 1996.
a In Re Nelson 280 F2d 172 (C.C.P.A) 1960.
In US research Article – Reverting the Double Helix: - A Nove and non-obvious Re – conceptualisation of Bio – Technology Patents – 55 stane law 307 (2007). Linda J. Demaine & Aaron Xavier fellmeth and Rebecca Eisenberge recounting the role of patent in approximately the value of DNA seqvies 49 Emory law Journal 783 (2000) - Observed respectively that (a) DNA sequence discovery has more beyond trough offers to be done particular genes to large scale high throughout sequence of entire genomes new question have emerged. (b) The ability of scatters to rapidly sequence DNA has resulted in explosion of discoveries of DNA sequence - harmful/and mean less scientifically that in turn has caused deluge /flood of patent apart.
In Brand 51 F3d 1560 to 1566 (Fed Cir) 1995 and CMFT Inc. vs Yielup International Corporation 146 F3d (1350) (Fed Cir.) 2003.
Process Central Corporation vs Hyde Reclaim Corporation 190 (F3d) 1350 – 1359 (Fed Cir.) 2003.
New Mann vs Quigg. 877 F2d. 1575.
National Science foundation of US.
1936 AIR Bomb. 665.
Emergency project TERI workshop New Delhi (March 2010). http://www.terin.org
March1st, 2013: http://www.apple.com.in
a 6 SCC = 2013, AIR 1311 SC.
Strasbourg Agreement 1971 (Amdt. 1979).
Germany Utility (Patents) mode of law 1891 (Amdt – 2013).
International conference on Nano Technology and Nano Science Dated 12, Oct 2017 under auspicious of Devi Ahilya University Indore (M.P.).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
