August 2, 2009
Last year Melbourne company Genetic Technologies threatened to sue hospitals and laboratories testing for mutations after it bought patents off Myriad. This has triggered an Australian government supported parliamentary inquiry, instigated by Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan.
“It asks the fundamental question, ‘Who owns your body?’ – I mean do we want our bodies to be converted into a tradeable instrument that gets traded around the planet?” asks Senator Heffernan.
In general, for something to be patentable, it is required to be novel, inventive and useful, and made by man.
The human genome is presumably “man made” in the sense that fingernails clippings, urine and hair are man-made, but gene sequences are really more a scientific discovery than an invention. Mapping gene sequences is not novel and inventive in the traditional sense.
There are, however, strong economic arguments that without a financial incentive of the type that a patent provides, i.e. a limited monopoly, the private sector would not invest in gene research.
“We don’t think people should have a monopoly just because they have discovered a gene,” says Professor Ian Olver, of the Cancer Council of Australia.
For more information on this development, see:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1062772/Controversy-over-gene-patents
1 Comment | 
News, Opinion | 
Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
August 2, 2009
A certain Albert Rachimi has successfully registered the trademark Ice Cube, despite opposition from Gilman S.p.A. who has word-marks Ice (TM69325) and Iceberg (69330) in the same category 25.
Apparently, not only is Ice Cube distinctive, but the word is considered sufficiently generic with regards to clothes that there is no dilution or assumed relationship.
I would asume that the word Ice for clothing is supposed to imply that the brand is “cool”. The word “cube” seems somewhat “square”. I have no idea what any of the various ice related brands look like.
One of Israel’s more popular brands of clothes, with shops in malls and on high streets, is Fox. There is a whole family of related brands: Fox Men, Fox Women, Fox Kids, Fox Babies, etc. One wonders if there is anything particularly different between Fox and Ice? Since Men, Women and Babies are obviously totally generic, could I open a shop called Fox Grandma? Fox Teenager? Fox Young Professional? Fox Yuppy?
Leave a Comment » | Israel IP, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
August 2, 2009
In IL 187147 to James Howared, the Applicant missed the 30 month deadline and filed in the 31st month. Israel is a 30 month regime. The Applicant, represented by Reinhold Cohen (RCIP) appealed the decision and the Adjudicator of Patents, Noach Shmulovich Shalev, ruled that unintentionally missing the deadline is not enough; the Applicant is required to show Due Care.
The case is very similar to IL 175104 (one of my clients), where I cited Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | IPO, Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, PCT, Patents, WIPO | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
August 2, 2009
Joel Tennenbaum has been found guilty of illegally downloading copyright songs from a shared music Web site and fined $675,000.
Over-ruling arguments that the Law was non-constitutional, Judge Nancy Gertner upheld the U.S. Copyright Law and the Digital Millennium Act under which the RIAA is entitled to collect fines of up to $750 to $30,000 per infringement.
Joel Tenenbaum, the 25-year-old Boston University graduate student, pleaded guilty Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | Copyright, Fair Use, Intellectual Property | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
