Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

The role of morality in Australia's patent regime has remained largely uncertain owing in part to a general reluctance to engage with the "general inconvenience" proviso. The prevailing view is that matters of morality and indeed ethics are within the exclusive purview of the legislature. Unfortunately, despite repeated attempts at law reform, the situation remains largely unchanged. Drawing from the words of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its 2004 Genes and Ingenuity Report, it appears there has been no compelling case for amending the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to allow expressly for the exclusion of particular subject matter from patentability on social or ethical grounds. More than a decade on, the question is whether this statement holds true. Accordingly, this article evaluates the current ethical exclusions in Australia's patent regime in light of the dilemma posed by patenting bioprinted structures and considers whether this presents a compelling enough case for the amendment of the Patents Act 1990.

Item Type:	Article
Authors/Creators:	Adesanya, OO
Keywords:	Australia, bioprinting, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, ethics, general inconvenience, health technologies, morality, patents
Journal or Publication Title:	Australian Intellectual Property Journal
Publisher:	Lawbook Co.
ISSN:	1038-1635
Copyright Information:	Copyright 2019 Thomson Reuters
Item Statistics:	View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page