본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

유전자 관련 발명의 성립성

Subject-matter Patentability of Gene-related Inventions

김관식
중앙법학회 (Chung-Ang Law Association)|2011.12|중앙법학 (CHUNG_ANG LAW REVIEW)|제13권 제4호|pp. 641-667|DOI 10.21759/caulaw.2011.13.4.641

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

유전자(gene)특허성(patentability)성립성(subject-matter patentability)유용성(utility)자연법칙(law of nature)
주제분류법학

초록

Heredity is one of the most essential features of creatures and it is well known that heredity is mediated by genes especially by DNA from parents to offspring. Due to the revolutionary progress in the biotechnology such as recombinant DNA, DNA-related inventions have been frequently submitted for patents. Subject-matter patentability of DNA-related inventions is generally approved mainly based on the utility and artificiality of the inventions. But the subject-matter patentability can not be guaranteed by the utility and artificiality of the inventions. Being useful and artificial, the subject-matter patentability should be denied when the inventions can be deemed as law of nature or abstract idea as contrasted by application of idea in order to restrict the exclusive right of the invention and prevent harmful consequences by the resulting monopoly. With given DNA, resulting amino acids are determined by the codons of the DNA and the amino acids in turn determine the proteins, essential part of most living organisms. DNA-related inventions with known function such as isolated DNA, cDNA, therefore, can be deemed as a law of nature; whereas subject-matter patentability of recombinant DNA which is made of a fragment DNA with a known function and plasmid acting as a vector, can not be denied due to the plurality of the possible combining methods. The subject-matter patentability of gene-related inventions such as isolated DNA, cDNA, therefore, can not be approved.

Abstract

Heredity is one of the most essential features of creatures and it is well known that heredity is mediated by genes especially by DNA from parents to offspring. Due to the revolutionary progress in the biotechnology such as recombinant DNA, DNA-related inventions have been frequently submitted for patents. Subject-matter patentability of DNA-related inventions is generally approved mainly based on the utility and artificiality of the inventions. But the subject-matter patentability can not be guaranteed by the utility and artificiality of the inventions. Being useful and artificial, the subject-matter patentability should be denied when the inventions can be deemed as law of nature or abstract idea as contrasted by application of idea in order to restrict the exclusive right of the invention and prevent harmful consequences by the resulting monopoly. With given DNA, resulting amino acids are determined by the codons of the DNA and the amino acids in turn determine the proteins, essential part of most living organisms. DNA-related inventions with known function such as isolated DNA, cDNA, therefore, can be deemed as a law of nature; whereas subject-matter patentability of recombinant DNA which is made of a fragment DNA with a known function and plasmid acting as a vector, can not be denied due to the plurality of the possible combining methods. The subject-matter patentability of gene-related inventions such as isolated DNA, cDNA, therefore, can not be approved.

참고문헌 (54)

  1. 구대환, "미국의 유전자 특허", 서울법학, 16(2), pp.13~38 (2009), 법학연구소
  2. 구대환, "DNA 단편에 대한 특허보호의 문제점과 해결방안", 인권과 정의, (395), pp.140~159 (2009), 대한변호사협회
  3. 吉藤幸朔, "YOU ME 特許法律事務所 譯", 特許法槪說, 13 (2000), 대광 서림
  4. 김관식, "특허대상 여부의 판단기준으로서 발명의 성립성과 subject matter patentability : 영업방법 관련 발명의 특허대상 여부 판단의 궁극적 기준을 모색하며", 사법, 1(16), pp.75~116 (2011), 사법발전재단
  5. 김형건, "유방암 유전자 특허를 둘러싼 특허분쟁에 대한 고찰", 한양법학, (28), pp.185~208 (2009), 한양법학회
  6. 박영규, "생명공학적 발명의 보호와 유전자특허의 보호범위", 산업재산권, (18), pp.41~81 (2005), 한국산업재산권법학회
  7. 사법연수원, "저작권법", ~ (2010)
  8. 사법연수원, "특허법", ~ (2010)
  9. 서계원, "유전정보 관련 발명의 특허성과 효율적인 법적 보호", 박사, pp.2004
  10. 핵산(cDNA) 및 그에 의해 코딩되는 단백질에 관한 출원발명이 특정 적이고 실질적이며 신뢰할만한 유용성이 없으므로 산업상 이용가능성이 없는 발명 또는 기재불비에 해당하여 특허를 받을 수 없다고 판단한 사 례-특허법원 2008. 9. 26. 선고 2007허5116판결-”, "이종우", 지적재산권, 지적재산 권법제연구원, ~ (2008)
  11. 정상조, "특허법주해 I" (2010), 박영사
  12. 조명선, "생명공학발명과 특허", 특허소송연구, 3 (2005), 특허법원
  13. 조영선, "특허법 제3판" (2011), 박영사
  14. 中山信弘, "韓日知財權硏究會 譯", 特許法, 法文社, ~ (2001)
  15. 특허청, "산업부분별심사기준 생명공학분야", ~ (2010)
  16. "대법원 1992. 5. 8. 선고 91후1656 판결", ~ (1992)
  17. "특허법원 2002. 5. 30. 선고 2001허1006 판결", ~ (2002)
  18. "특허법원 2008. 9. 26. 선고. 2007허5116 판결", ~ (2008)
  19. Arthur R. Miller, "Intellectual Property Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright" (2007), Thomson West
  20. Christopher Anderson, "NIH Drops Bid for Gene Patents", ~ (1994)
  21. C. J. Hamson, "Patent Rights for Scientific Discoveries" (1930), The Bobbs-Merrill Co
  22. Craig Noyce, "Copyright Law 7th ed" (2006), LexisNexis
  23. Dept. of Commerce, "Utility Examination Guidelines", Fed. Reg, ~ (2001)
  24. Donald L. Zuhn, Jr, "DNA Patentability: Shutting the Door to the Utility Requirement", J. Marshall L. Rev, 973~977 (2001)
  25. Erwin Schrödinger, "What Is Life? Mind and Matter" (1944), Cambridge University Press
  26. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, "Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome", Nature, 931~945 (2004)
  27. James Watson, "MOLECULAR STRUCTURE OF NUCLEIC ACIDS A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid", Nature, 737~738 (1953)
  28. Janice M. Mueller, "Patent Law 3rd ed" (2009), Aspen
  29. Jeffrey L. Harrison, "Law and Economics" (2003), Thomson West
  30. Jeffrey S. Dillen, "DNA Patentability-anything but obvious", Wis .L. Rev, 1023~ (1997)
  31. Lillian Ewing, "In re Fisher: Denial of patents for ESTs signals deeper problems in the utility prong for patentability", 8 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech, pp.645~652 (2007)
  32. Lionel Bently,Brad Sherman, "Intellectual Property Law" (2003), Oxford University Press
  33. Morris F. Cohen, "An Introduction To Logic And Scientific Method, Harcourt" (1934), Brace & World, Inc.
  34. Paul Goldstein, R, "Copyright Patent Trademark and Related State Doctrines Cases and Materials on the Law of Intellectual Property 6th ed" (2008), Foundation Press
  35. Robert P. Merges, "Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age 3rd ed" (2003), Aspen
  36. Roger Schechter, "Principles of Patent Law 2nd ed" (2004), Thomson West
  37. William Burnham, "Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States 4th ed" (2006), Thomson West
  38. "American Wood-Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co", 566~ (1874)
  39. "Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc", 1313~ (2003)
  40. Association for Molecular Pathology v, "Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S.P.T.O", ~ (2011)
  41. "Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S.P.T.O. 702 F.Supp.2d 181, 198", ~ (2010)
  42. "Bilski v. Kappos", 3218~ (2010)
  43. "Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519", ~ (1966)
  44. "Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, 111 U.S. 293", ~ (1884)
  45. "Diamond v. Chakrabarty", 303~ (1980)
  46. "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc", 340~ (1991)
  47. "Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127", ~ (1948)
  48. "In re Bergstrom", 1394~ (1970)
  49. "In re Fisher", 1365~ (2005)
  50. "Kuehmsted v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co., 179 F.701", ~ (1910)
  51. "Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp", 156~ (1958)
  52. "Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co", 95~ (1911)
  53. "Schizomycetes, Torula, Eremothecium. Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 253 F.2d 156, 159", ~ (1958)
  54. "State Street Bank Co. v. Signature Financial Group., Inc", 1596~ (1998)

관련 논문AI추천

유전자 관련 발명의 특허적격성에 관한 최근 동향: 미국 연방대법원의 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 판결의 의미김형건한국법제연구원 · 법제연구2014 · 제46호DNA 단편에 대한 특허보호의 문제점과 해결방안구대환대한변호사협회 · 인권과 정의2009 · 제395호인간 유전자와 유전자 진단 방법의 특허대상발명 여부김형건과학기술법연구원 · 과학기술법연구2011 · 제16권 제2호인간 유전체 연구 관련 국제 특허성 연구(Ⅰ): 유전자 단편, 유전자 진단, 체세포 유전자 치료를 중심으로김소윤, 김수민, 김한나한국의료법학회 · 한국의료법학회지2016 · 제24권 제2호유전자 편집기술인 CRISPR-Cas9의 특허 가능성박인회법학연구원 · 법학논고2018 · 제62호분리된 유전자의 특허적격에 대한 연구윤여강법학연구소 · 아주법학2017 · 제11권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (20건)

사회국가적 생존배려와 물 산업 민영화의 헌법적 한계 - 독일의 법체계를 중심으로 -권형둔pp. 7-38메이지憲法에서의 國家와 宗敎민경식pp. 39-86일반상품시장의 설립과 거래투명화를 위한 법제 방안박기선, 이종영pp. 87-125독일 행정소송에서의 원고적격김병기pp. 127-164물값분쟁에 대한 판례 검토위계찬pp. 165-201
원문 보기