英语论文网

ight way to interpret (namely, broadly or narrowly). There is strong argument that genetic engineering should be protected by the patent system since it is of great potential for new medical treatments and disease management. [52] Take stem cell for example, although the research in this field does raise severe moral controversy when derived from embryos, it has great potential benefits for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Multiple Sclerosis. [53]

Thus, despite there are arguments that morality provision should not be construed narrowly, [54] considering the morality provision acting as an exception to granting patents, it can safely be concluded that the morality exception is one of the restrictions on patentability, and considering the characteristic and main function of patent system, such restriction needs to be narrowly interpreted.

Conclusion

The complexity of the moral issue and the equivocation of morality provision lead to inconsistent interpretation of Article 53(a) EPC during the development of case law. This essay has mainly discussed the two different morality standards and corresponding approaches of judgment in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the current problem in this area. It will be a chronic problem in the foreseeable future, probably, because on one hand, the so called morality exception is favoured by the Greens, animal welfare activists and environmentalists as a powerful weapon against biotechnology inventions [55] , consequently they prefer stricter moral standard which is in stark contrast to the proponents of genetic engineering who like a loose standard, and on the other hand in the contemporary society there are few, if any, such inventions so clearly immoral as to raise little difficulty to deny granting a patent on the ground of morality.

However, considering the great medical potential, the confusing patentable standards should not be a barrier to the biotechnology research and investment, a wildly accepted standard should be adopted. Although there is no easy solution to the current chaos, it is by no means impossible. If the role of patent system were to be recognized correctly, and fully understanding that morality provision such as Article 53(a) EPC is just an exception to patentability rather than a moral regulator, through narrowly interpreting, it is hopeful that the certainty and clarity of morality will be given back to the patent system. A single standard of morality or at least a unitary approach to assess morality is still possible to be adopted in the following development of case law.
本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。