Adventitious Presence of Patented Genetically Modified Organisms on Private Premises: Is Intent Necessary for Actions in Infringement Against the Property Owner?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2007
Adventitious Presence of Patented Genetically Modified Organisms on Private Premises: Is Intent Necessary for Actions in Infringement Against the Property Owner?
The law of patents has long struggled with the status of intent in determining liability for infringement. This struggle has recently been given a sharper edge by the emergence of biotechnological products with the inherent ability of auto-dispersal and regeneration. The question thus is whether a person on whose backyard a patented genetic organism has grown without the active intervention of that person is liable in infringement to the patentee of that organism. This article examines the ramifications of the legal conundrum and argues that on a proper construction of the theories of liability in patent law intent to infringe is necessarily crucial if the nature of the subject matter of the patent makes it unjust and absurd to argue otherwise.
Abbott, F.M.
(2002a).
The Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health: Lighting a dark corner at the WTO (World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Understanding, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)
. Journal of International Economic Law, 5(2),
469-505
.
2.
Abbott, F.M.
(2002b). WTO TRIPS agreement and its implications for access to medicines in developing countries.
London: Commission on Intellectual Property Rights
.
3.
Acharya, R.
(1999). The emergence and growth of biotechnology.
Cheltenham
, UK,
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
.
4.
Adams, C.
(2006).
A brief history of indirect liability for patent infringement
. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 22,
369-619
.
5.
Anderfelt, U.
(1971). International patent-legislation and developing countries,
The Hague
, The Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhoff
.
6.
Apotex v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd, SCC 77 (2002).
7.
Beidler v. Photostat Corp., F. Supp. 628, 631 (W.D. N.Y. 1935).
8.
Bent, S.
,
Schwaab, R.
,
Conlin, D.
, &
Jeffrey, D.
(1987). Intellectual property rights in biotechnology worldwide.
New York: Stockton Press
.
9.
Blair, R.
, &
Cotter, T.
(2001).
Rethinking patent damages. Texas Intellectual PropertyLaw Journal, 10,
1-35
.
10.
Blair, R.
, &
Cotter, T.
(2002).
Strict liability and its alternatives in patent law
. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17,
1-78
.
11.
Bud, R.
( 1993). The uses of life: A history of biotechnology.
Cambridge
, UK,
New York: Cambridge University Press
.
12.
Cullet, P.
(2004, February). Liability and redress in biotechnology: Towards the development of rules at the national and international levels (IELRC Background Paper). Available at www.ielrc.org/content/w0401.pdf
13.
Cullet, P.
(2005).
Monsanto v. Schmeiser: A landmark decision concerning farmer liability and transgenic contamination
. Journal of Environmental Law, 17(1),
83-108
.
14.
deBeer, J.
(in press).
The rights and responsibilities of GMO patent owners
. UBC Law Review, 40(1).
15.
Drahos, P.
(1996a).
Global law reform and rent-seeking: The case of intellectual property
. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 7(1),
45-61
.
16.
Drahos, P.
(1996b). A philosophy of intellectual property.
Aldershot
, UK:
Ashgate Publishing
.
17.
Dutfield, G.
(2003). Intellectual property and the life science industry: A twentieth century history.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing
.
18.
Farnese, P.
(2004).
Patently sensible: Reconsidering the responsibility of patentees in today's inventive climate
. Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 6,
1-24
.
19.
Free World v. Electro Sante Inc., 9 CPR 4th 168 (2004).
20.
Glenn, J.
(2003).
Genetically modified crops in Canada: Rights and wrongs
. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 12,
281-305
.
21.
Graver Tank v. Linde Air, 339 US 650 (1950).
22.
Hoffman v. Monsanto Canada Inc, SKQB 225 (2005). Hogg, P. (1997). Constitutional law of Canada (4th ed.). Scarborough, Canada: Carswell.
23.
Khoury, L.
, &
Smyth, S.
(2005, July 6-10).
Reasonable foreseeability and liability in relation to genetically modified organisms
. Paper presented at 9th International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research, Ravello, Italy. Available at www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/abstract/file/Khoury-Smyth_Papers_Abstract_05.pdf
24.
Kirin-Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited, UKHL 46 (2004).
25.
L.A. Gear v. E.S. Originals Inc., 859 F. Supp. 1294. (C.D. Cal. 1994)
26.
Lee, M.
, &
Burrell, R.
(2002).
Liability for the escape of GM seeds: Pursuing the victim
? Modern Law Review, 65,
517-537
.
27.
Lichtman, G.
(1997).
The economics of innovation: Protecting unpatentable goods
. Minnesota Law Review, 81,
693-723
.
28.
Maurer, S.
, &
Scotchmer, S.
(1998). The independent-invention defense in intellectual property (John M. Olin Working Paper Series, No. 98-11).
Berkeley: University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law
.
29.
McPhar Engineering v. Sharpe, 35 C.P.R. 105 (Ex. Ct. 1960).
30.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v. H. N. Norton & Co Ltd, RPC 76 (1996).
31.
Mgbeoji, I.
(2003).
Patent first, litigate later! The scramble for speculative and overly broad genetic patents: Implications for access to health care and bio-medical research
. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 2(2),
83-100
.
32.
Mgbeoji, I.
(2006). Global biopiracy: Patents, plants and indigenous knowledge.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
.
33.
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 1 S.C.R 902 (2004).
34.
Pall, S.
(2006).
Wilful patent infringement: Theoretically sound? A proposal to restore wilful infringement to its proper place within patent law
. University of Illinois Law Review, 3,
659-675
.
35.
Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4.
36.
Phillipson, M.
(2006). Legal impediments to the survival of organic production . Available at www.inter-disciplinary.net.ptb/ejgc/egjc5/phillipson%20paper.pdf
37.
Preston, H.
(2003).
Drift of patented genetically engineered crops: Rethinking liability theories
. Texas Law Review, 81,
1153-1174
.
38.
Reddick, T.
(2004).
Liability prevention and biotechnology: A brief history of successful industrial stewardship
. Agriculture Biotechnology. Available at http;://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/nabc_17/parts/NABC17_Module4_2.pdf
39.
Repp, R.
(2000).
Biotech pollution: Assessing liability for genetically modified crop production and genetic drift
. Idaho Law Review , 36,
585-607
.
40.
Roughton, A.
,
Cook, T.
, &
Spence, M.
(2005). The modern law of patents.
London: Butterworths
.
41.
Siebrasse, N.
(2004).
A remedial benefit-based approach to the innocent user problem in the patenting of higher life forms
. Canadian Intellectual Property Review, 20(1),
79-134
.
42.
SRI Int. v. Advanced Technology Lab, 127 F. 3d at 1468 (1997).
43.
Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton-Davies, 520 US 17 (1997).
44.
Whirlpool v. Camco Inc, 9 CPR 4th 129 (1999).
45.
Wright, J.
(2001).
Wilful patent infringement and enhanced damages: Evolution and analyses
. George Mason Law Review, 10,
97-125
.
