A Theoretical and Comparative Study of Intellectual Property Rights in the Field of Biotechnologies

Original Article | Pages: 81 - 97
  • Mohammad Rasekh - 1. Nanobiotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 2. Professor of Law and Philosophy, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran [m-rasekh@sbu.ac.ir]
  • Sanaz Sharifi - LLM in Public Law and Attorney at Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
  • Ataollah Rahmatollahi - LLM in Public Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran


Background: The production of knowledge and technology in the field of biological sciences has raised challenges for legal protection of intellectual property rights of knowledge and technology owners. The difficulty in responding to such challenges is mostly dependent on the quiddity of the produced knowledge and the product. Can biotechnology products, which are often the result of research on human biological components, be protected by intellectual property rights? It seems that granting intellectual property rights to researchers in the field of biotechnology depends on answering such questions.

Methods: The data of this paper is based on the study of the legal system of different countries and the international legal system. The authors have tried to investigate different opinions and verdicts related to intellectual property rights and their supporting evidence in various legal systems and make them a blueprint for studying the domestic legal system in Iran.

Results: The findings of this study show that different countries, have recognized the intellectual property rights of the owners of knowledge in the field of biotechnology, so that human knowledge will not lag behind the new technological advances.

Conclusion: The most important aspect of intellectual property in biotechnology is the focus on human inherent value and the prohibition of slavery. In addition, the focus should be on distributive justice and the return of its profits from the intellectual property of these technologies to the community.


  1. The Convention on biological diversity 1992 (Rio de Janeiro), Article 2.
  2. Rasekh M. [Biotechnology and human being: problems and perspectives. Leg Res Q. 2005;40:18-20. Persian.
  3. World intellectual property organization. WIPO intellectual property handbook: policy, law and use. Geneva: WIPO Publication; 2004. 488 p.
  4. Amani T. [Laws and regulations relating to intellectual property rights (national & International)]. 2nd ed. Tehran: Behnami Publication; 2008. p. 536. Persian.
  5. Encyclopedia Britannica [Internet]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/patent [Accessed 19th May 2019].
  6. World intellectual property organization. An explanatory note concerning the origins of the United Kingdom intellectual property legal regime. Available from: www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/wipolex/en/notes/gb.pdf [Accessed on 19th May 2019].
  7. Sell S, May C. Moments in law: contestation and settlement in the history of intellectual property. Rev Int Polit Econ. 2001;8(3):467-500.
  8. Fisher W. Theories of intellectual property. Cambridge: Cabridge; 2001. p. 3-6. Available from: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf [Accessed 19th May 2019].
  9. Kinsella NS. Against intellectual property. J Libert Stud. 2001;15(2):1-54.
  10. Bix B. Natural law theory. In: Patterson D, editor. A companion to philosophy of law and legal theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 2010; p. 6-9.
  11. Damstedt BG. Limiting locke: a natural law justification for the fair use doctrine. Yale Law J. 2003;112(5):1181-3.
  12. Hegel GWF. Elements of philosophy of right. Wood AW, editor. Nisbet HB, Translator. UK: Cambridge university press; 1991. 569 p.
  13. Stace WT. [The philosophy of hegel. 4th ed. Enayat H, Translator. Teharan: Elmi-Farhangi; 1993. p. 532-3. Persian.
  14. Menell PS. Intellectual property: general theories. In: Marciano A, Ramello GB, editors. Encyclopedia of law and economics. New York: Springer; 1999. p. 130-61.
  15. Posner RA. Intellectual property: the law and economics approach. J Econ Perspect. 2005;19(2):57-73.
  16. Drahos P. A philosophy of intellectual property. 1st ed. Canberra: The Australian National University; 2016. p. 8-11.
  17. Ostergard Jr RL. Intellectual property: a universal human right? Hum Rights Q. 1999; 21(1):156-78.
  18. Crook J. Balancing intellectual property protection with the human right to health. Berkeley J Int Law. 2005;23(3):524-50.
  19. OseiTutu, JJ. Corporate “human rights” to intellectual property protection? Santa Clara Law Rev. 2015;55:1-51.
  20. Hekmatnia M. [The theoretical foundations of intellectual property]. Tehran: Islamic research institute for culture and thought; 2008. p. 375-88. Persian.
  21. World intellectual property organization. Available from: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html#patent [Accessed 19th May 2019].
  22. Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994, Annex 1C of the marrakech agreement establishing the world trade organization (Morocco), Article 27.
  23. Sadeghi M. [Ethical challenges of biotechnological patents]. Modares J Hum Sci. 2005;9(3):95. Persian.
  24. Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works 1971 as amended on September 28, 1979 (paris), article 2.
  25. WIPO copyright treaty 1996 (Geneva), Article 4.
  26. Intellectual property and biotechnology (A training hand book). Australia: Foreign affairs and trade; 2001. p. 2-5, 40-41 (Annex 2). http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/30881/20020913-0000/www.dfat.gov.au/publications/biotech/downloads/Whole_Handbook.pdf [Accessed on 21st May 2019].
  27. Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity 2000 (Montreal), Article 3, Sec. (i).
  28. Pillar O. Legal and ethical issues in biotechnology patenting. In: Burley J, Harris J, editors. A companion to genethics. UK: Blackwell; 2004. p. 412-5.
  29. Singh KK. Biotechnology and intellectual property rights (Legal and social implications). India: Springer; 2015. p. 20-21, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88-89, 101-102, 107-108.
  30. Nicol D. Cooperative Intellectual Property in Biotechnology. SCRIPT-ed Open Licence (SOL). 2007;4(1):139.
  31. Mark S. Are genes invention? an ethical analysis of gene patents. In: Burley J, Harris J, editors. A companion to genethics. UK: Blackwell; 2004. p. 422-4.
  32. Nambisan P. An introduction to ethical, safety and intellectual property rights issues in biotechnology. UK: Academic Press (Elsevier); 2017. p. 299-302.
  33. Budapest treaty on the international recognition of the deposit of microorganisms for the purposes of patent procedure 1977 (amended on September 26, 1980), Articles 1-3.
  34. The Bermuda Principles 1996, The international strategy meeting on human genome sequencing.
  35. Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (1973 and amended 2001), Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization, Art. 53 (b).
  36. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (1995), Case no. T356/93.
  37. Implementing Regulations of Administrative Council of the European Patent (last amendment 2018), Rule 27 (a), Rule 28-29.
  38. Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (Directive 98/44/EC) 1998, The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union, Art. 6.
  39. Habiba S. [Patentability of biotechnology invention and TRIPS agreement]. Law Polit Sci. 2003;60:98. Persian.
  40. U.S. Code (1952), Title 35, Part II, Chap. 10, Sec. 101.
  41. Robinson D, Medlock N. Diamond v. Chakrabarty: a retrospective on 25 years of biotech patents. Intellect Prop Technol Law J. 2005;17(10):12.
  42. Re Application of Abitibi Co. 1982, 62 C.P.R. (2d) 81.
  43. Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1989] 1 SCR 1623, 1989 CanLII 64 (SCC).
  44. Harvard college v. Canada (Commissioner of patents), 2002 SCC 76, 219 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 21 C.P.R. (4th) 417, 235 F.T.R. 214.
  45. The UK Patents Act 1977 (as amended October 2017).
  46. Wong J, Quach U, Thorsteinsdóttir H, Singer PA, Daar AS. South Korean biotechnology- a rising industrial and scientific powerhouse. Nature Biotechnology. 2004; 22:DC42-DC47. Available from: http://www.jcb.utoronto.ca/rss/news/documents/nature_southkorea.pdf [Accessed on 22nd May 2019].
  47. Patent Act of South Korea 1990, Articles 1& 32.
  48. The Patents Act 1970 as amended 2002 (India), Sec. 2 (j), 2 (i), Sec. 3 (j), Sec. 3 (b).
  49. Diminaco, (2002) I.P.L.R. July 255 (Calcutta), at 258, 270.
  50. Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure. The Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Mumbai: 2005(as amended 2011).
  51. Examination Guidelines for patent applications relating to biotechnological inventions in the intellectual office property, Intellectual Property Office, 2016, Art. 118. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/512614/Guidelines-for-Patent-Applications-Biotech.pdf
  52. Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Registration Act 2008 (IRI), Articles 2 & 4. Persian.
  53. Executive Regulation of Patent, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Registration Law 2009 (IRI), Article 12. Persian.
  54. Rasekh M. Biotechnology-related intellectual property law of Iran. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol. 2009;1(2):89-94.
  55. Munzer SR. Property, patents, and genetic material. In: Burley J, Harris J, editors. A companion to genethics. UK: Blackwell; 2004. p. 452.
  56. Katouzian N. [Primary course of civil law: property]. 33rd ed. Tehran: Mizan; 2011; p. 23-5. Persian.

XML Format

XML in HBI Format


Rasekh M, Sharifi S, Rahmatollahi A. Theoretical and Comparative Study of Intellectual Property Rights in the Field of Biotechnologies. Iran J Biomed Law Ethics. 2019;1(1):81-97.