University of Tasmania
Browse

File(s) not publicly available

Are Patents for Methods of Medical Treatment Contrary to the Ordre Public and Morality or 'Generally Inconvenient'?

journal contribution
posted on 2023-05-16, 15:25 authored by Mitnovetski, O, Dianne NicolDianne Nicol
"No one has advanced a just and logical reason why reward for service to the public should be extended to the inventor of a mechanical toy and denied to the genius whose patience, foresight, and effort have given a valuable new [discovery] to mankind" (Katopis CJ. Patents v patents: policy implications of recent patent legislation. St John's Law Review 1997;71:329). The law around the world permits the granting of patents for drugs, medical devices, and cosmetic treatment of the human body. At the same time, patentability for a method of treatment of the same body is denied in some countries on various public policy grounds. Is there any logical justification for this distinction? Are methods of medical treatment not as vital to the health or even to the life of a patient as drugs or medical devices? Why is a cosmetic result patentable and a curative result not.

History

Publication title

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volume

30

Issue

5

Pagination

470-475

ISSN

0306-6800

Department/School

Faculty of Law

Publisher

BMJ Publishing Group

Place of publication

UK

Repository Status

  • Restricted

Socio-economic Objectives

Justice and the law not elsewhere classified

Usage metrics

    University Of Tasmania

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC