By: Jasper A. Bovenberg The Human Genome Project generated oceans of DNA sequence data and spurred a multinational race to grab the bounties of these oceans. In response to these DNA property grabs, UNESCO, drawing upon international law precedents addressing analogous grabs in the past, declared the Human Genome the heritage of humanity. The UNESCO Declaration provided, first, that the heritage shall not, in its natural state, give rise to financial gains and, second, that countries establish an international framework to make the benefits from genome research available to all. This iBrief will first examine Grotius’s Mare Liberum to determine whether international law precedent indeed bars the private appropriation of a common heritage. Second, the iBrief will revisit the framework developed by Pardo for the exploitation of the mineral resources of the ocean floor and analyze whether it could serve as a model for an international framework for sharing the benefits of current genome research. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2006 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0008
Day: March 8, 2006
Unnecessary Indeterminacy: Process Patent Protection After Kinik v. ITC
By: John M. Eden In Kinik v. International Trade Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suggested in dicta that the defenses available to foreign manufacturers in infringement actions under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) in Federal district courts do not apply to exclusion actions before the International Trade Commission. This iBrief argues that this decision is problematic for three reasons: (1) the Federal Circuit’s decision is inconsistent with the ITC’s longstanding tradition of consulting the patent statute when adjudicating exclusion actions under 19 U.S.C. § 1337, (2) the court’s suggestion that the ITC should be given broad discretion to resolve conflicts between the patent statute and the Tariff Act is at odds with the Chevron doctrine, and (3) if the ITC employs the broad discretion that Kinik confers to it by excluding more foreign art than Federal district courts could lawfully exclude under the patent statute, the enforcement of domestic patent policy in the United States could conceivably violate obligations of non-discrimination (Article 27.1) and burden-shifting (Article 34) imposed by the TRIPS Agreement. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2006 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0009