Exclusions from patentability: How far has the European patent office eroded boundaries?

Exclusions from Patentability: How Far has the European Patent Office Eroded Boundaries?

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1-341

  Sterckx, Sigrid ^a   Cockbain, Julian ^b  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923600252     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139047623     Document Type: Book

References (139)

1. Alexander, Daniel (2000), ‘The Case For and Against the Patenting of Biotechnological Inventions’, in Sigrid Sterckx (ed.), Biotechnology, Patents and Morality, 2nd reworked edn, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 254–8.
2. Anderson, David J. and Stemple, Derek L. (1994), Mammalian multipotentneural stem cells, International Patent Application Publication No. WO94/02593, Geneva: WIPO.
3. Arrow, Kenneth Joseph (1962), ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, pp. 609–25.
4. Atkins, Beryl T., Duval, Alain, Milne, Rosemary C, Cousin, Pierre-Henri, Lewis, Hélène M. A., Sinclair, Lorna A., Birks, Renée O. and Lamy, Marie-Noëlle (eds.) (1987), Collins-Robert French-English Dictionary, 2nd edn, London: Collins.
5. Baird, Douglas (1983), ‘Common Law Intellectual Property and the Legacy of International News Service v. Associated Press’, University of Chicago Law Review50, 411-29.
6. Barry, Gerard Francis, Kishore, GaneshMurthy and Padgette, Stephen Rogers (1992), Glyphosate tolerant S-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthases, International Patent Application Publication No. WO92/04449, Geneva: WIPO.
7. Barry, Gerard Francis, Kishore, GaneshMurthy and Padgette, Stephen Rogers (1996), Glyphosate tolerant S-enolpyruvylshkimate-3-phosphate synthases, European Patent No. 546090, Munich: EPO.
8. Beazley, Kim, Ferreira, Kenneth L., Fitzpatrick, Sharie N., McCaslin, Mark H. and Reyes, Carlos C. (2004), Glyphosate tolerant alfalfa events and methods for detection thereof, International Patent Application Publication No. WO2004/070020, Geneva: WIPO.
9. Bentham, Jeremy (1785), A Manual of Political Economy, Works of Jeremy Bentham, Bowring, John (ed.), Vol. III, Edinburgh: William Tate.
10. Beyleveld, Derek and Brownsword, Roger (2001), Human Dignity in Bioethics and Bio-Law, Oxford University Press.
11. Bodenhausen, Georg. H. C. (1969), Guide to the Applicationof the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as Revised at Stockholm in 1967, Geneva: United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI).
12. Boyle, James (2003), ‘The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain’, Law and Contemporary Problems66: 33–74.
13. Brockhaus, Friedrich Arnold (1987), Brockhaus Enzyklopädie in vierundzwanzig Bänden, 19th edn, Vol. IV, Mannheim: F. A. Brockhaus von Selbstverlag.
14. Brownawell, Darrell William, Norris, Donald James and Shaub, Harold (1988), Removal of carcinogenic hydrocarbons from used lubricating oil, European Patent Application Publication No. 275148, Munich: EPO.
15. Bruchhausen, Karl (1988), in Georg Benkard and Karl Bruchhausen (eds.), Beck’sche Kurz Kommentare: Georg Benkard Patentgesetz: Gebrauchsmustergesetz, 8th edn, Munich: C. H. Beck.
16. Brüstle, Oliver (2006), Neural precursor cells, method for the production and use thereof in neural defect therapy, European Patent No. 1040185, Munich: EPO.
17. Charne, David G., Grant, Ian, Kraling, Konrad, Patel, Jayantilal D., Pruvot, Jean-Claude M. and Tulsieram, Lomas K. (1998), Oilseed Brassica containing an improved fertility restorer gene for ogura cytoplasmic male sterility, International Patent Application Publication No. WO98/27806, Geneva: WIPO.
18. Charne, David G., Grant, Ian, Kraling, Konrad, Patel, Jayantilal D., Pruvot, Jean-Claude M. and Tulsieram, Lomas K. (2009), Oilseed Brassica containing an improved fertility restorer gene for ogura cytoplasmic male sterility, European Patent No. 891130, Munich: EPO.
19. Cockbain, Julian and Sterckx, Sigrid (2011a), ‘A Sun-Tanned or 3D Smurf? Patentability of Computer Programs in Europe’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice6(4), 254–61.
20. Cockbain, Julian and Sterckx, Sigrid (2011b), ‘Is the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Authorized to Extend the Bounds of the Patentable?’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law42(3), 257–71.
21. Cockbain, Julian and Sterckx, Sigrid (2012), ‘Are products of essentially biological processes patentable in Europe? The purple radish sprouts case in The Netherlands’, European Intellectual Property Review34(6), 422–444.
22. Cohen, Wesley, Nelson, Richard and Walsh, John (2000), Protecting their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent or Not, Working paper 7552, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
23. Conley, John M. and Makowski, Roberte (2004), ‘Rethinking the Product of Nature Doctrine as a Barrier to Biotechnology Patents in the United States - and Perhaps Europe as Well’, Information & Communications Technology Law13(1): 3–40.
24. Crespi, R. Stephen (1992), ‘Patents and Plant Variety Rights: Is There an Interface Problem?’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law23(2), 168–84.
25. David, Paul A. (1993), ‘Intellectual Property Institutions and the Panda’s Thumb: Patents, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets in Economic Theory and History’, in Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Mary Ellen Mogee and Roberta A. Schoen (eds.) (1993), Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology, Washington DC: National Academy Press, pp. 19–61.
26. Drahos, Peter (1999), ‘Biotechnology Patents, Markets and Morality’, European Intellectual Property Review21(9), 441–9.
27. Drahos, Peter (ed.) (2005), Death of Patents, Oxford: Law Text Publishers.
28. Drahos, Peter with Braithwaite, John (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Ownsthe Knowledge Economy?, London: Earthscan Publications.
29. Dutfield, Graham (2009), Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: Past, Present and Future, 2nd edn, Singapore: World Scientific.
30. Dutton, Harry I. (1984), The Patent System and Inventive Activity During the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1852, Manchester University Press.
31. EPO (2006), Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973, 12th edn, Munich: EPO.
32. EPO (2010a), Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973 as revised by the Act revising Article 63 EPC of 17 December 1991 and the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000, 14th edn, Munich: EPO.
33. EPO (2010b), Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 6th edn, Munich: EPO.
34. EPO (2011), Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Munich: EPO.
35. Evans, Ronald M., Kliewer, Stephen A. and Umesono, Kazuhiko (1993), Multimeric forms of members of the steroid/thyroid superfamily of receptors, International patent application publication no. W093/11235, Geneva: WIPO.
36. Foster, Charles (2011), Human Dignity in Bioethics and Law, Oxford: Hart.
37. Gold, Richard and Carbone, Julia (2008), Myriad Genetics in the Eye of the Policy Storm, Montreal: McGill Centre for Intellectual Property Policy.
38. Government of the Federal Republic of Germany (1972), Munich Diplomatic Conference for the Setting Up of a European System for the Grant of Patents, 1973 (Munich, 10 September to 6 October 1973), Munich: Wila Verlag für Wirtschaftswerbung.
39. Government of the Federal Republic of Germany (1973), Minutes of the Munich Diplomatic Conference for the Setting Up of a European System for the Grant of Patents (Munich, 10 September to 5 October 1973), Berlin: Bundesdruckerei Berlin.
40. Green, Ronald Michael (2001), ‘What Does it Mean to Use Someone as “a Means Only”: Rereading Kant’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal11(3), 247–61.
41. Green, Ronald Michael (2002), ‘Benefiting from “Evil”: An Incipient Moral Problem in Human Stem Cell Research’, Bioethics16, 544–56.
42. Grubb, Philip W. (2004), Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Biotechnology: Fundamentals of Global Law, Practice, and Strategy, 4th edn, Oxford University Press.
43. Haddon, R. Lee (2008), ‘The Heringen Collection ofthe US Geological Survey Library, Reston, Virginia’, Earth Sciences History27(2), 242–65.
44. Hettinger, Edwin C. (1989), ‘Justifying Intellectual Property’, Philosophy & Public Affairs18(1), 31–52.
45. Hofmann, Bjørn (2009), ‘Broadening Consent and Diluting Ethics?’, Journal of Medical Ethics35, 125–9.
46. Holland, Susan (2001), ‘Contested Commodities at Both Ends of Life: Buying and Selling Gametes, Embryos and Body Tissues’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal11(3), 263–84.
47. Hudson, Peter John, Niall, Hugh David and Tregear, Geoffrey William (1991), Molecular cloning and characterization of a further gene sequence coding for human relaxin, European Patent No. 112149, Munich: EPO.
48. Hughes, Justin (1988), ‘The Philosophy of Intellectual Property’, Georgetown Law Journal 77,287–366.
49. Jeffreys, Diarmuid (2008), Hell’s Cartel: IG Farben and the Making of Hitler’s War Machine, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
50. Johnson, Samuel (1755), A Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. I, London: Richard Bentley.
51. Kant, Immanuel (1963), Lectures on Ethics, Infield, Louis (trans.), New York: Harper & Row.
52. Kant, Immanuel (1969), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Beck, Lewis White (trans.), Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
53. Kolle, Gert (1974), ‘The Patentable Invention in the European Patent Convention’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law5(2), 140-56.
54. Kühn, Ralf, Von Melchener, Harald and Altschmied, Joachim (2001), Conditional gene trapping construct for the disruption of genes, International patent application publication no. WO01/29208, Geneva: WIPO.
55. Landau, Sidney I., Becker, E. Lovell, and Manuile, Alexandre (eds.) (1986), International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, Vol. III, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
56. Lange, David (1981), ‘Recognizing the Public Domain’, Law and Contemporary Problems44(4), 147–78.
57. Lawrence, Robert Howard and Hill, Phillip Eugene Jr (1982), A process for the rapid development of hybrid plants and commercial production of hybrid seed, European Patent Application Publication No. 44723, Munich: EPO.
58. Leder, Philip and Stewart, Timothy A. (1986), Method for producing transgenic animals, European Patent Application Publication No. 169672, Munich: EPO.
59. Leder, Philip and Stewart, Timothy A. (1992), Method for producing transgenic animals, European Patent No. 169672, Munich: EPO.
60. Leemans, Jan, Botterman, Johan, de Block, Marc, Thompson, Charles and Maoura, Rao (1990), Plant cells resistant to glutamine synthetase inhibitors, made by genetic engineering, European Patent No. 242236, Munich: EPO.
61. Levin, Richard, Klevorick, Alvin, Nelson, Richard and Winter, Sidney (1987), ‘Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity3, 783–820.
62. Llewelyn, Margaret and Adcock, Mike (2006), European Plant Intellectual Property, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
63. Locke, John (1988/1690), Two Treatises of Government, Laslett, Peter (ed.), Cambridge University Press.
64. Machlup, Fritz (1958), An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study No. 15 ofthe Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 85th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office.
65. MacLeod, Christine (1988), Inventing the Industrial Revolution. The English Patent System, 1660–1800, Cambridge University Press.
66. Mandich, Giulio (1948), ‘Venetian Patents (1450–1550)’, Prager, Frank D. (trans.), J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 30(3), 166–224.
67. Mansfield, Edwin (1986), ‘Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study’, Management Science32(2), 173–81.
68. Martinez-Force, Enrique, Perz-Vich, Begona, Fernandez-Martinez, José Maria and Garces, Rafael (2004), Oil from seeds with a modified fatty acid composition, European Patent No.1185161, Munich: EPO.
69. Maskus, Keith E. (2000), Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy, Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.
70. Maskus, Keith E. and Reichman, Jerome (eds.) (2005a), International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Cambridge University Press.
71. Maskus, Keith E. and Reichman, Jerome (2005b), ‘The Globalization of Private Knowledge Goods and the Privatization of Global Public Goods’, in Maskus and Reichman (2005a), pp. 3–45.
72. Matthews, Duncan (2002), Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: The TRIPs Agreement, London: Routledge.
73. Meek, Ronald Lindley, Raphael, David Daiches and Stein, Peter G. (eds.) (1978), Adam Smith: Lectures on Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press.
74. Mellulis, Klaus-Jürgen (2002), ‘Ausnahmen von der Patentierbarkeit’, in Barbara Dobrucki et al. (eds.), Benkard: Europäisches Patentübereinkommen: Kommentar, Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck.
75. Moufang, Rainer (1991), Kommentierung des Europäischen Patentübereinkommens: Artikel 53: Ausnahmen von der Patentierbarkeit, in Friedrich-Karl Beier, Kurt Haertel and Gerhard Schricker (eds.), Europäisches Patentübereinkommen: Münchner Gemeinschaftskommentar, Vol. XV, Munich: Carl Heymanns Verlag.
76. Moufang, Rainer (1994), ‘Patenting of Human Genes, Cells and Parts ofthe Body -the Ethical Dimensions of Patent Law’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law25, 487–515.
77. Nozick, Robert (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
78. Penrose, Edith Tilton (1951), The Economics of the International Patent System, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
79. Pfanner, Klaus (1962), ‘Vereinheitlichung des materiellen Patentrechts im Rahmen des Europarats’, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil, 545–54.
80. Pila, Justine (2005a), ‘Dispute over the Meaning of “Invention” in Art. 52(2) EPC: The Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law36(2), 173–91.
81. Pila, Justine (2005b), ‘Article 52(2) of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents: What Did the Framers Intend? A Study of the Travaux Préparatoires’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law36(7), 755–87.
82. Pila, Justine (2009), ‘Article 53(b) EPC: A Challenge to the Novartis Theory of European Patent History’, Modern Law Review72(3), 436–62.
83. Pila, Justine (2010), The Requirement for an Invention in Patent Law, Oxford University Press.
84. Pompidou, Alain (2007), letter to Lord Justice Jacob, available at: www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-pn/p-pn-subjectmatter/p-pn-sub-jectmatter-letter.htm (last accessed 6 December 2011).
85. Prager, Frank D. (1944), ‘A History of Intellectual Property from 1545 to 1787’, J. Pat. Off. Soc’y26(11), 711–60.
86. Rachels, James and Rachels, Stuart (2007), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 5th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.
87. Reifferscheid Martin and Weiler, Siegfried (1989), Chirurgie, 8th edn, Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag.
88. Rey, Alain (ed.) (1985), Le Grand Robert de la Langue Française, Vol. II, Paris: Le Robert.
89. Rogers, Rev. J. E. T. (1863), ‘On the Rationale and Working of the Patent Laws’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London26, 121–42.
90. Ryals, John A., Gay, Philippe Bernard, Ahi Goy, Patricia A. and Garcia-Olmedo, Francisco (1991), Anti-pathogenically effective compositions comprising lytic peptides and hydrolytic enzymes, European Patent Application Publication No. 448511, Munich: EPO.
91. Sawyer, Donald C, Brody, Theodore M. and Langham, Mariee A. (1992), Euthanasia compositions, International Patent Application Publication No. WO92/11009, Geneva: WIPO.
92. Sawyer, Donald C, Brody, Theodore M. and Langham, Mariee A. (1996), Euthanasia compositions, European Patent No. 516811, Munich: EPO.
93. Schatz, Ulrich (2000), ‘Patents and Morality’, in Sigrid Sterckx (ed.), Biotechnology, Patents and Morality, 2nd reworked edn, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 217–28.
94. Schatz, Ulrich (2003), ‘Article 53 Exceptions to Patentability’, in Margarete Singer and Dieter Stauder (eds.), The European Patent Convention: A Commentary, Vol. I, Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 84–102.
95. Scheffier, Samuel (ed.) (1988), Consequentialism and its Critics, Oxford University Press.
96. Scherer, Frederick M., Herzstein, Sigmund, Dreyfoos, Alex, Whitney, William, Bachmann, Otto, Pesek, Paul, Scott, Charles, Kelly, Thomas and Galvin, James J. (1959), Patents and the Corporation: A Report on Industrial Technology under Changing Public Policy, 2nd edn, Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
97. Schiff, Eric (1971), Industrialization without National Patents: The Netherlands, 1869–1912: Switzerland, 1850-1907, Princeton University Press.
98. Schmookler, Jacob (1965), ‘Technological Change and Economic Theory’, American Economic ReviewMay, 333–41.
99. Schulte, Rainer (1981), Patentgesetz, 3rd edn, Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag.
100. Schwalm, Georg (1980), ‘Chirurgie und Recht’, in Rudolf Zenker, Franz Deucher and Wilhelm Schink (eds.), Chirurgie der Gegenwart, Vol. I, ‘Allgemeine Chirurgie’, Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
101. Sell, Susan K. (1998), Power and Ideas: North-South Politics of Intellectual Property and Antitrust, Albany: State University of New York Press.
102. Sell, Susan K. (2003), Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge University Press.
103. Shattuck-Eidens, Donna M., Simard, Jacques, Emi, Mitsuru, Nakamura, Yusuke and Durocher, Francine (2001), Mutations in the 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene, European Patent No. 705903, Munich: EPO.
104. Shulman, Seth (1999), Owning the Future, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
105. Singer, Peter (1995), Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of our Traditional Ethics, Oxford University Press.
106. Skolnick, Mark H., Goldgar, David E., Miki, Yoshio, Swensen, Jeff, Kamb, Alexande, Harshman, Keith D., Shattuck-Eidens, Donna M., Tavtigian, Sean V., Wiseman, Roger W. and Futreal, P. Andrew (2001a), 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene, European Patent No. 705902, Munich: EPO.
107. Skolnick, Mark H., Goldgar, David E., Miki, Yoshio, Swensen, Jeff, Kamb, Alexande, Harshman, Keith D., Shattuck-Eidens, Donna M., Tavtigian, Sean V., Wiseman, Roger W. and Futreal, P. Andrew (2001b), Method for diagnosing a predisposition for breast and ovarian cancer, European Patent No. 699754, Munich: EPO.
108. Smith, Austin Gerard and Mountford, Peter Scott (1999), Isolation, Selection and Propagation of Animal Transgenic Stem Cells, European Patent No. 695351, Munich: EPO.
109. Spector, Horacio M. (1989), ‘An Outline of a Theory Justifying Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights’, European Intellectual Property Review11(8), 271–4.
110. Sterckx, Sigrid (2005), ‘The Ethics of Patenting - Uneasy Justifications’, in Peter Drahos (ed.), Death of Patents, Oxford: Law Text Publishers, pp. 175–211.
111. Sterckx, Sigrid (2008), ‘The European Patent Convention and the (Non-)Patentability of Human Embryonic Stem Cells - the WARF Case’, Intellectual PropertyQuarterly12(4), 478 Sterckx, Sigrid 95.
112. Sterckx, Sigrid (2009), ‘Is the Non-Patentability of “Essentially Biological Processes” Under Threat?’, Journal of World Intellectual Property13(1), 1–23.
113. Sterckx, Sigrid and Cockbain, Julian (2010a), ‘The Patentability of Computer Programs in Europe: An Improved Interpretation of Articles 52(2) and (3) of the European Patent Convention’, Journal of World Intellectual Property13(3), 366–402.
114. Sterckx, Sigrid and Cockbain, Julian (2010b), ‘Assessing the Morality of the Commercial Exploitation of Inventions Concerning Uses of Human Embryos and the Relevance of Moral Complicity’, SCRIPTed - A Journal of Law, Technology & Society7(1), 83–103.
115. Sterckx, Sigrid and Cockbain, Julian (2010c), ‘Purpose-limited Pharmaceutical Product Claims under theRevised European Patent Convention: A Camouflaged Attack on Generic Substitution?’, Intellectual Property Quarterly14(1), 88–107.
116. Sterckx, Sigrid and Van Assche, Kristof (2011), ‘The New Belgian Law on Biobanks: Some Ethical Reflections’, Health Care Analysis19(3), 247–58.
117. Strauch, Eckhard, Arnold, Walter, Alijah, Renate, Wohlleben, Wolfgang, Pühler, Alfred and Eckes, Peter (1993), In Pflanzen wirksames Resistenzgen gegen Phosphinothricin und sene Verwendung, European Patent No. 275957, Munich: EPO.
118. Straus, Joseph (1987) ‘The Relationship between Plant Variety Protection and Patent Protection for Biotechnological Inventions from an International Viewpoint’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law18(6), 723–37.
119. Sturm, Elmar, Schempp, Heinrich and Martin, Henry (1980), Schwefelhaltige Oxim-Verbindungen, Verwendung solcher und anderer schwefelhaltiger Oxim-Verbindungen zum Schutz von Kulturpflanzen, European Patent Application Publication No. 10588, Munich: EPO.
120. Sturm, Elmar, Schempp, Heinrich and Martin, Henry (1985), Schwefelhaltige Oxim-Verbindungen, Verwendung solcher und anderer schwefelhaltiger Oxim-Verbindungen zum Schutz von Kulturpflanzen, European Patent No. 10588, Munich: EPO.
121. Taylor, Charles T and Silberston, Z. Aubrey (1973), The Economic Impact of the Patent System. A Study of the British Experience, Cambridge University Press.
122. Thomson, James A. (1996), Primate Embryonic Stem Cells, International Patent Application Publication No. W096/22362, Geneva: WIPO.
123. Tully, James (1980), A Discourse on Property. John Locke and his Adversaries, Cambridge University Press.
124. UPOV (1974), Actes des Conférences internationals pour la protection des obtentions végétales: 1957-1961: 1972, Geneva: UPOV.
125. USA (2010), Amicus curiaebrief by the United States of America, dated 29 October 2010, available at: www.pubpat.org/assets/files/brca/CAFC/United%20States%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf (last accessed 28 December 2011).
126. van Benthem, Johannes Bob (1993), ‘The European Patent System and European Integration’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law24(4), 435–45.
127. van den Berg, Paul (1996), ‘Patentability of Computer-software-related Inventions’, in Members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, The Law and Practice of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office During Its First Ten Years, Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 29–47.
128. Van Empel, Martijn (1975), The Granting of European Patents: Introduction to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, Munich, October 5, 1973, Leyden: A. W. Sijthoff.
129. Van Meilaert, Herman, Botterman Johan, Van Rie, Jeroen and Joos, Henk (1991), Prevention of Bt resistance development, European Patent Application Publication No. 408403, Munich: EPO
130. Van Meilaert, Herman, Botterman Johan, Van Rie, Jeroen and Joos, Henk (1994), Prevention of resistance development against Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein, European Patent No. 408403, Munich: EPO.
131. Wadlow, Christopher (2008), ‘Utility and Industrial Applicability’, in Toshiko Taneka (ed.), Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 355–82.
132. Wadlow, Christopher (2010), ‘The Great Pharmaceutical Patent Robbery, and the Curious Case of the Chemical Foundation’, Intellectual Property Quarterly14, 256–92.
133. Walker, C. Lester (1946), ‘Secrets by the Thousands’, Harper’s Magazine, October 1946, 329–36.
134. Warshofsky, Fred (1994), The Patent Wars: The Battle to Own the World’s Technology, New York: Wiley.
135. Webber, Philip (2011), ‘Brüstle: What Will Happen Next?’, Posting on the website of ‘The IPKat’, 29 October 2011, available at http://ipkitten.blog-spot.com/search?q=webber (last accessed 8 April 2012).
136. WIPO (1970), Records of the Washington Diplomatic Conference on the Patent Cooperation Treaty, Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
137. Yamagishi, Hirofumi, Shigemura, Kouji, Yoneyama, Hirokazu, Segoshi, Tooru, Nakata, Yutaka and Yamashita, Motosogu (1993), Projector-type head lamp for vehicles, European Patent No. 295705, Munich: EPO.
138. Zagyansky, Yuly (2000), Einstein-Bohr end: new atomic scale physics, electric field: neutinos and electrons in conversions, perpetual motion. Development: seisms, extinguished volcans, created islands, big bang energy, International patent application publication no. WO00/52989, Geneva: WIPO.
139. Zipse, Erich (1973), ‘Wird das künftige europäische Patenterteilungsverfahren den modernen, zukunftsintensiven Technologien gerecht?’, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil, 182–9.