Review Article: Intellectual property rights

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013 Review Article: Intellectual property rights Genesis of patents, patent system and its relevan...
Author: Leo Gordon
4 downloads 0 Views 810KB Size
ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

Review Article: Intellectual property rights Genesis of patents, patent system and its relevance Author: Milind V. Sathe Deputy General Manager (Projects), Unichem Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai, India Cellular: +919004051281 Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Nowadays a lopsided version of patent rights is propagated that places patentee above sovereign and law. TRIPs has equated importation with local working. This was not the version when monopoly privileges, patent privileges existed. The transformation of privilege to civil right started with situational compulsion leading to political economic compromises. The transformation is still on and patents are now called human rights albeit the nucleus of these rights is forgotten. The article refreshes the memories of origin, history and development of patents and is aimed to provoke reader to assess and question if unrestricted freedom and superiority of patentee over sovereign and public interest was ever envisioned by our ancestors. Most of the development is a British legacy and hence many examples are from British regime over the globe. Article ends with the fact that British patent law has retained many provisions which enable government to limit patentees‟ right.

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

INTRODUCTION Nation which forgets history has no future. In knowledge economy (KE), every nation including Developing countries (DCs), least developed countries (LDCs) and its subjects must know the Origin, History and Development (OHD) of patents amidst propagation of lopsided IPR versions. Machlupi (1958) remarkedii retention of patent system to serve its purpose and justified it by retaining its productive attributes for the benefit of nation and mankind. If patent system is a dictate of historical necessity, patent statutes are indispensable due to the exigencies of human, territorial or national existence. How and why it started In the early ages, short term trade rights grants secured the trade interests e.g. 1 year trade rights associated with new dishes, in 500 BC in Italy.iii From 12th century inventions are protected for gaining economic advantage to achieve crown policy objectives. Silk weaving process inventors in Venice held 10 year monopoly. The justification for monopoly privilege system was essentially economic just like its effect. The term monopoly originated in Continental European usage around 13th Century. Grotiusiv labeled monopolies as “public injuries and punishable as such” if these are used to raise prices or throttle the supplies to market. Main evolution is credited to British development. British Crown increased revenue by securing existing trade, developing and expanding domestic industry by creating new jobs for Englishmen and training them. Crown discouraged import dependence to continue its global crusade by establishing a Monopoly privilege system, a system contract between the Crown and the entrepreneur, to ensure internalization of new technologies for domestic use to augment exports. This system created financial incentives, stimulated domestic industry, economy and welfare of the State without any payment out of the royal treasury. Crown protected the trade by Privilege grants and attracted foreign entrepreneurs and inventors to England to introduce new industries for inward migration of skills, internalization new technologies and trained natives. Privileges

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

and patents are well thought political move to increase exports and the wealth of the nation and is justified by economic objectives of stimulating technical progress.v Grants by Queen Elizabeth between 1561 and 1603 forced foreigners to bring in newer technologies. vi Privilege system ensured working within the empire and held entrepreneur responsible for positive performance. Failure to work caused expiry of grant.vii Privileges in England were solution to fiscal and administrative problems and so were Patents. Privileges used inventive ingenuity to achieve royal objectives wrt economy, industry, public interest and never provided unrestricted freedom to privilege holder. Republic of Venice passed first statute in 1474. It created general principals of Patent Law. Attributes of New and to be useful to the State were prerequisites for monopoly right of limited duration. It directed communication of new and inventive devices to the Republic and putting it into practice to obtain legal protection. Import substitution, “dissemination of technology” and “transfer of knowledge” into England were achieved by compulsory training to natives by “local working”. Original nature of Privilege grants in British kingdom Privileges grants were issued by two letters, one addressed to individual and other to the public. Privileges were refused for minor improvements (section 3d?). Importers received Privilege grants to use imported invention for limited term, in 14th Century. Salient features of Privileges in British System British Crown awarded several monopoly privileges (1558-1603) to importers, traders and inventors to internalize new technologies to augment domestic industry, to produce new goods to promote and strengthen economic and industrial policies.viii 1) Privileges were available to new trade that did not exist then within the empire without endangering current state of trade, and skills e.g. forgotten or unused skill or technique. 2) Grant and Continuity of privilege necessitated working within the empire. Non working resulted into cancellation.

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

3) Training natives and compulsory employment of English workmen was critical part of the grant e.g. Grant to John Utyman (1449) for a glass-making process. The beginning of metamorphosis In 14th Century, King Edward III issued letters patent to relocate foreigners into England to establish their trade and ensured training to English subjects in the trade, to enhance exports and build robust economy, a royal economic, industrial and trade policy. Letters patent issued in 16th Century for manufacturing monopolies. Edward VI issued letters patent 21 years monopoly to Henry Smyth to manufacture Normandy Glass only if he worked it in England is characterized by following objectivesix 1) Introduction of Normandy Glass into England 2) Its availability at cheaper price, 3) Englishmen to be trained in manufacturing of the Normandy Glass and articles made out of it and earn living, 4) They will be able to impart the same to fellow subjects, 5) Subjects will be able to make the same in near future, 6) Normandy Glass and the articles made from it will not be imported. To enjoy the fruits of monopoly it was necessary that (i)

Smyth brings into England the foreign trade of Normandy glass. “Local working” creates import substitute to build healthier economy.


Prices are lower and number of commodities increased. Same as Section 83(a) and (g) of The Patents Act of India.

(iii) Trains Englishmen in the production of Normandy glass. Privilege grant was simple way to internalize technologies into England. Ipswich Case in 1615 reinforced training of Englishmen as an essential condition for grant and provided logical explanation for limited term of monopoly and its termination. Monopoly after acquisition of knowledge and skill by the Englishmen was interpreted to prevent trade. Privileges were to benefit by positive working. Privilege holder enjoyed benefits by working, apprentices and subjects by accessing variety of new articles at cheaper price. Nation reduced its imports, increased employment opportunities and exports, furthered better distribution and

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

redistribution of wealth, increased revenues, ensured social welfare and most importantly political stability. Training English subjects presumed building a self reliant industry. Privileges were means to an end; to achieve industrialization, training of subjects, increasing employment opportunities, internalizing new technologies, bringing in foreign trade by domestic working. Today are patents interpreted as an end or means to an end? The debate if privilege is human right was not required. By ignoring basics of OHD of privileges and patent system, DCs and LDCs will not achieve what England achieved by privileges. Lopsided interpretation of patents is shrinking sovereign domains; privileges enabled England to expand its economy, trade, industry, wealth creation. Grant of monopoly privilege was incapable to abolish the existing trade i.e. enclosing the commons x or Double patenting or submarine patents xi was prohibited. Royal wish was to allow domestic industry to perform freely


and protect it from any “intellectual”

interpretation jeopardizing existing trade or livelihood of subjects to ensure efficient use of existing resources, maintenance of existing sources of income and existing levels of distribution and redistribution of wealth besides perfect royal control over domestic industrial activity. England equated trade with life and prohibited any act taking away the trade, the employment or opportunity or that discouraged existing industry; independent of quality / quantity of intellectual effort or alleged ingenuity, or labor involved. Strong nationalist consideration marks entire development in England. The Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852 was designed to attract capital for small ventures and novel ideas to benefit the industry. Examination system introduced by 1852 and 1883 amendments started working post 1900. Novelty and sufficiency of description assumed importance. Post 1949 “Obviousness” established as pre grant ground of opposition. Threat to British industry by European nations and U.S. initiated changes in British patent system. To protect domestic chemical industry from advanced German industry, First half of 20th century did not protect chemical products. Licences of right prevailed to about 1977 and

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

forced foreigners to allow use of their pharmaceuticals and food product patents. Many nations post World War II followed it. Shift in interpretation Fundamental shift in interpretation in last 400 years converted erstwhile privileges into civil or legal rights, a more sophisticated and respectable term than privileges. Why and What caused the shift? Is it superficial or the nucleus is changed? What is the nucleus? Are patents seen as means to an end like privileges or an end itself? Who is beneficiary of fundamental shift, by accepting an absolute power of patentee above the sovereign and society? Patent system, its enforcement is influenced by Economics, Politics and Constitutional law across its development. Privileges enforced as positive rights produced products of labour. Patents now called human right, a more glossy term, enable its continued abuse and misuse contradicting its genesis. Harrold Fox said “Patent and copyrights rest on … the grounds of justice and public policy.” xiii

Theory of Economy and Philosophy imagined Patents and privileges to balance individual and public interest. Profits and advantages were realized in true sense by working the patent. Negative version of the patent right i.e. assuming profit in non working is self contradicting. Nonworking is not profitable to patentee or to public and was emphasized by Crown in patent privilege grants. Political, intellectual and institutional forces and Natural right theory influenced issuance and enforcement of Patents in England in 17th Century and part of 18th century. Walterscheidxiv indicated the basic change between 1600 and 1800 from viewing a patent as a “contract between the crown and the patentee” to a “social contract'. The social contract view presumed that patentee would help the nation in the times of exigency. Middle age period in England is marked by sluggish industrial growth. Patent privileges as contracts between crown and privilege holder, were effective tool and attracted craftsmen, tradesmen, industrialists to England and fulfilled social obligations, an inherent part of royal policies.

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

Analysis of shift of focus and rise of Statute of monopolies Monopoly privilege system focused on establishing new industry in empire. With advent of time, this fact assumed secondary importance for some reason may be political or otherwise.xv Complexities created by 4 agricultural failures and harvest drops in 1557-1559, 1586, 1596-1597 and 1622 punctured agriculture backed British economy.xvi Drastic bullion shortage caused business depression and financial crisis to Crown. To raise finance and to improve the balance of trade, parliament took the reigns of patent grant and enforcement in its hand and was supported by Crown. Ailing king James died in 1625. Strained relationship with Spain and transition of power in change of reigns to Charles, had some impact in passing of Statute of Monopolies. That is why many view the Statute as a political compromise and compromise with erstwhile policies. Superficially this unique twist gave precedence to disclosure as against public interest or industrialization or bringing in foreign trade or local working principle but still retained CL provisions. Subsequent grants did not expressly emphasize on local working or addition to existing trade or industry. It created nationwide discomfort. Uncontrolled and unrestricted grants and their merciless enforcement sowed the seeds of widespread discontent, caused disputes. Industry experienced setbacks. Employment opportunities shrunk. This era of “economic and social troubles” gave rise first ever patent enactment with CL provisions to effectively check exaggerated patent grants and enforcement. Statute of Monopolies came into existence in 1623. Darcy Vs Allen provided an objective logic to grant the monopoly, provided litmus test to identify odious horrible, hateful monopoly, and protected existing trade and industry by declaring a grant about known or about existing industrial activity as monopoly against the law. It clarified concept of novelty, working of the patent, term of the patent and established that the patents are for the larger good of the society. Coke who argued for Darcy described negative attributes of monopoly. The case reinforced the basic requirement of “bringing in new trade into the realm”. Novelty and bringing in new trade by one‟s own efforts were established as basic requirements in forthcoming law. Statute of Monopolies exhibited maiden shift in administration of monopolies. Patent was to come into existence not as royal privilege but as a legal right by common law mechanism and

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

courts. Disputes were to be decided by common law but remained out of its purview for long time. The Statute defined the legal conditions to be fulfilled to enable issuance of a patent for an invention. Patent privileges were replaced by civil right of patents. The Statute stated that “any letters patent and grants of privilege for the term of fourteen years or under, hereafter to be made, of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this realm, to the true and first inventor of such manufactures which others at the time of making such letters patents and grants shall not use”. Patent term, Positive right, working within the empire, True and first inventor, principle of treble damages, and costs to be paid were essential attributes of patent law emerged with Statute. “Not contrary to the law, not to be mischievous to the State by increasing prices of Commodities and should not be inconvenient to the consumer” were main features. “Inconvenience” and “mischievous” meaning “though clearly obnoxious or injurious to the commonwealth, could not be proved definitely illegal”xvii or “one that makes many men to idle”.xviii Anything contradicting public interest was mischievous and inconvenient.xix It can be interpreted from fiscal or economic perspectives. Statute favored rise in employment, work to all skilled workmen to avoid idleness which was the root of bad shape of the economy of the Empire. In Section 6, Statute stipulated 14 years for patent term, a period it considered adequate to train at least 2 English apprentices. Is the condition of not hurting existing trade and must not be generally inconvenient similar to Sec 84(7)(a) of The Patents Act of India? Common law retained the essence of patent grant to Henry Smyth and its implementation was expected to lead to prosperity and gains to the Realm, motivating merchants to seek out new trades. Jurisdictional dilemma and privilege monopolies Common law continued to recognize royal privileges, due to jurisdictional dilemma. The dispute over non worked patent and the problem in renewal of non worked patent in Yarrangton’s case reinforced the local working requirement to maintain validity of patents. Non worked monopoly privileges were not renewed. The next milestone which emphasized on specification as an objective requirement was the Garill‟s case. By 1690, criteria of new

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

or novelty, true and first inventor, bringing in foreign trade and working in the empire were established. Later part of 17th century was marked by revocation of some patents for nonworking in the empire or because the patentee returned to his native land. There are several approaches to study the issue. According to approach of superficial interpretation sticking to the plain meaning indicates that cancellation of patents was because of non working and because patentee returned to his motherland. Approach of reading between the lines, indicates that violation of the law of land, contradicting sovereign non conformance to the Royal dictum or non conformance to common law or sovereign dictum exposed the monopoly for cancellation. The teaching is that patentee MUST conform to the law of the land. This period is also marked by refusal to the grant and cancellation of some privileges on the ground that these were concerning something that was already known. The law was evolving amidst new applications and challenges to existing monopoly privileges. The idea of recovery of expenses incurred had started taking shape without sacrificing presumption that monopoly holder would help the country during emergency. It further reinforced that monopoly holder, his monopoly and its enforcement is inseparably related to his performance and his behavior during periods of national emergency and it continued to justify the existence of monopoly. Certification from the crown had vital impact in protecting privilege holder law court. End of dilemma Till the dispute between Dr. James and Mr. Walker Baker in about 1747, the privileges were not treated as legal rights, albeit Statute of Monopolies prevailed for more than century. Practically privileges, their processing and dispute settlement were beyond the jurisdiction of law courts. The dispute between Dr. James and Mr. Walker Baker was litigated in Privy Council and later in law courts, clarified who would decide patent disputes. It emphasized the importance of specification in patent system, identified law courts to have competent jurisdiction to decide patent disputes and their Judges to shoulder the responsibility of granting and enforcing the patents. It was an end of the era of royal privileges.

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

Importance of disclosure and specification increased as the idea of efforts taken and investments made assumed more importance in introduction of new industry in the empire than erstwhile imports. Sturtevant applied with description of his invention to establish that he was true and first inventor. Possibly, description in his application replaced the condition of working the invention as the skill was exposed to public. But still it maintained that privilege holder would help the nation in times of emergency. Later when Graill was asked to provide written description of his invention, he refused and was not granted the privilege. During this period possibly, disclosure of the invention balanced working of the patent, without compromising the duty to service the nation at times of exigency. John Nasmith inventor of a process for preparing and fermenting wash from sugar applied for privilege grant with promise to file detailed procedure to work the invention after the grant. Soon system of filing description i.e. specification, became a routine practice to establish the nature of true and first inventor and to claim privilege protection. Liardet v. Johnson established that disclosure should be enabling, should enable replication of invention after the protection term is over. Newspaper publicity to the importance of such disclosure created a great impact and a history. Now description of invention or specification was no more an add-on feature to an application, but was a vital part of application, a consideration for grant. Subsequently this is twisted inordinately that privilege is in return for teaching by conveniently neglecting positive aspects, rest part of the development and the need to service the nation at times of exigency. Interpretation of increasing importance of specification Increased importance of specification, shift to legal courts established patents more of legal rights than privileges, more of social contracts than contract with Crown. James Watt believed that patents were a social good. Lockean theory supported patent privileges as social contracts and justified The Statute of Monopolies as a valid regulation of property. The social and economic philosophy viewed government‟s power to regulate property provided it acts without any prejudice or favor, through the laws enacted by the consent of the majority, or its representatives.

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

Patents were granted to work within the realm for the public good and so it was controlled. Benefits to the majority are invariably associated with Governments power to curtail the said legal right in cases of emergency. If the right holder failed to help the nation in emergency situations, Government was empowered to regulate it to ensure benefits to the subjects. Majority protecting right holder‟s right against the necessity of nation in cases of emergency when right holder fails to identify himself with the majority, is a mere statistical and theoretical possibility and is not supported in anywhere.xx 1852 British Patent Law Amendment includes simplified procedures, appointment of patent examiners to perform limited examination to ensure adequacy of description of invention and Single patent for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. 1872 Patent reform bill included forfeiture of patent, CL provisions. By 19th century patents gained recognition as a social contract. Hulme pointed out that real value of specification is contingent upon its successful working. Differences emerged in the metamorphosis from privileges to civil rights. Privileges ensured arrival of industry and foreign trade where as patents were for efforts taken. Accepting this deviated view of patent rights would mean these are not related to its working and hence not controlled by law or sovereign who create or enforce it. This lopsided view deviates from fundamental understanding that law enacted by elected representatives of majority regulates the right and disables laws from regulating patents, albeit law is required for the patent to take birth. This strange interpretation, a far stretched philosophy is against the law, sovereign and majority. Queen granted patent privileges for something that was known but was not in use. One who reinvigorated unused art received privilege. Novelty requirement appeared in 19th century and with advent of time acquired a definite meaning. Prior use or publication in England prevented the grant. Novelty assessment involved determination if it violates any of the existing practices of the trade at the time of the grant, or whether the invention was used before or known to those in the trade. Can investment of labor produce negative right?

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

Lockean theory professed positive right i.e. right to work the invention to create property by investing labour and influenced evolution of patent law in England by refusing negative version of right. Stephen Buckle says that "the doctrine of the origin of property through labor will not be properly understood if it is not recognized that Locke thinks of labour as rational or purposeful, value-creating activity”. xxi According to Locke “the root of property is production, and production is a creative activity………man must preserve his life” and refers to all positive acts in his Second Treatise. Justice Erle wrote in 1854: "The origin of the property is in production”.


Assigning a negative meaning to patent right is a

constitutionally wrong approach. Lockean approach supported patenting of products only and not the processes. Lockean theory believes that labor begets property by creating a new product and therefore creator has a right in the product. Novelty and benefit to the public or “to be productive” thus assumed invulnerable position in the patent administration in 19th century. Lockean theory praises the rich property given by god to us and supports enjoyment of property right by positive interpretation. If it perishes without the use in the hands of the owner, it is an act against the common law of nature and such behavior liable for punishment. According to Justice Yates " any rights given to inventors or authors are simply statutory rights related to and dependent upon considerations of utility or public goodwill” and Lockean theory supported positive aspect of property and influenced issue of defining a legal right. From 1883 to 2007 British Patent Enactments have undergone several amendments and have retained provisions related to CL, Use of patented inventions for the services of the crown, empowerment of Government Dept or any person authorized to make, use, import or keep the product, or sell or offer to sell the patented object and so on.xxiii Conclusion Patents system emerged out of national necessity and should be interpreted to balance public interest and private interest. Lopsided interpretation giving unrestricted freedom and superiority to patentee over sovereign was never a part of IPR.

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

REFERENCES i stem_Vol_3.pdf,,


Last accessed on 9 October 2012 ii

If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it.


History of Patents , Vishwas Deviah. Last accessed on 9th October at


CHAPTER XII.: On Contracts . - Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace (1901 ed.) [1625], Author: Hugo Grotius, Chapter 12 On contracts ml&Itemid=27 and Last accessed on 15th October 2012.



Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800. Mossoff, Adam. MSU Legal Studies Research Paper. Last accessed on 15th October 2012: and;


Edward J. Walterscheid, The Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (Part 3), 77 J. PAT. & 'I'RADEMARK OFF. SOCY 771, 793 (1995)


….. Tudor monopolies reflected a „laudable government intention to foster product innovation and import substitution‟: David Palliser, The Age of Elizabeth: England under the Later Tudors 1547-1603 (2nd ed, 1992) 376. Hulme mentioned that „Elizabethan policy aimed beyond question, as a perusal of the grants will amply testify, at the introduction of those industries the products of which had hitherto figured most prominently in the list of imports‟: History of the Patent System‟,


Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800. Mossoff, Adam. MSU Legal Studies Research Paper. Last accessed on 15th October 2012: and;


Compulsory Licensing in Knowledge Economy - it is NOW or NEVER - What, Why and When about CL. By Milind V. Sathe, Chapter 3, 3.20.1. Enclosing the commons-, (Publisher : Satyam Law International – 91-1123245698. ISBN 978-81-9058527-9)


Chapter 3, 3.20.7 and 3.20.15. Compulsory Licensing in Knowledge Economy - it is NOW or NEVER - What, Why and When about CL. As above.

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013


Read Darcy Vs Allen Darcy‟s monopoly prevailed.




Edward J. Walterscheid, The Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (Part 3), 77 J. PAT. & 'I'RADEMARK OFF. SOCY 771, 793 (1995)


32 ACIS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL 1601-1604 237 (October 7, 1601)


“Generally Inconvenient”: The 1624 Statute of Monopolies as Political Compromise, Andrew F Christie, Melbourne Law School and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, The University of Melbourne. Chris Dent, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia. The University of Melbourne, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia Working Paper No. 4/10, ISSN 1447-2317, June 2010. Last accessed on 15th October 2012.


Read Foster.


Read Hughes.


Hyde Price said that “ The public interest test nature of the phrase is supported by the inclusion of the similar phrase, “inconvenient to the commonwealth”, as a limit to validity in a number of patents granted in the early seventeenth century”. Peter Drahos was of the opinion that the Statute was based on moral standards so it supports public interest




“Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800, Adam Mossoff; John M. Olin

Fellow in Law, Northwestern University School of Law; J.D., University of Chicago L-aw School: MA. (philosophy), Columbia University; I3.A. (philosophy). University of Michigan”. Also accessible at Page 55/68 at last accessed on 24th Jun 2013. Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, United States xxii

Same as 16.


Quickly accessible at,

and last accessed on 12th October. The Patents Regulations 2000, the Enterprise Act 2002, the Regulatory Reform (Patents) Order 2004, the Patents Act 2004, the Medicines (Marketing Authorisations etc.), Amendment Regulations 2005, the Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006, the Patents (Compulsory Licensing and Supplementary Protection Certificates) Regulations 2007, the Legal Services Act 2007, and the Patents Act 1977 (Amendment) Regulations 2011, The Patents Act 2004 (c 16), The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c 48), The Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986 (c 39), The Patents Act 1977 (c 37) (see Patents Act 1977 (as amended up to and including 1 January 2010)), The Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Act 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz 2 c 25), The Patents Act 1957 (5 & 6 Eliz 2 c 13), The Patents Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo 6 c 87), The Patents and Designs Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo 6 c 62), The Patents and Designs Act

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013

1946 (9 & 10 Geo 6 c 44), The Patents and Designs Act 1942 (5 & 6 Geo 6 c 6), The Patents, Designs, Copyright and Trade Marks (Emergency) Act 1939 (2 & 3 Geo 6 c 107), The Patents and Designs (Limits of Time) Act 1939 (2 & 3 Geo 6 c 32), The Patents &c. (International Conventions) Act 1938 (1 & 2 Geo 6 c 29), The Patents and Designs Act 1932 (22 & 23 Geo 5. c 32), The Patents and Designs (Convention) Act 1928 (18 & 19 Geo 5 c 3), The Patents and Designs Act 1919 (9 & 10 Geo 5 c 80), The Patents and Designs Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo 5 c 18), The Patents and Designs Act 1907 (7 Edw 7 c 29), The Patents and Designs (Amendment) Act 1907 (7 Edw 7 c 28), The Patents Act 1902 (2 Edw 7 c 34), The Patents Act 1901 (1 Edw 7 c 18), The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict c 57), The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vict c 63), The Patents Act 1886 (49 & 50 Vict c 37), The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict c 50). Additional references: 1) William Hyde Price, The English Patents of Monopoly (1913); 2) E. Wyndham Hulme, „The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law‟ (1896) 12 Law Quarterly Review 141; 3) Arthur Gomme, Patents of Invention: Origin and Growth of the Patent System in Britain (1946); 4) Christine MacLeod, Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660-1800 (1988); 5)

Adam Mossoff, „Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550 – 1800‟ (2001).

6) Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry into Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010, Chris Dent, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, February 2011, Contact Details The contact for this submission is: Dr Chris Dent, Senior Research Fellow, IPRIA, Phone: (03) 8344 1134 Fax: (03) 8344 2111, Email: [email protected]

Photo of author

ISSN: 2319-5894 Pharma Utility Volume 7, Issue 3, 2013