Surgical Innovation and Patent Law: Conflicts and Resolutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.1665Keywords:
Surgical Innovation, Medical Patents, Healthcare Technology, Patent Infringement, Licensing Barriers, Patent Licensing, Surgical Procedures, Patent ConflictsAbstract
Thanks to surgical innovation, healthcare has been totally transformed and more advanced therapies and patient outcomes are now feasible. New surgical methods and patent laws clash to cause major issues influencing moral standards as well as the availability of medical treatment. This article examines the complex relationships among patenting surgical techniques, instruments, and technology as well as the more general consequences for patients and the medical community. Patents provide creators exclusive ownership over their creations, therefore guaranteeing a return on investment and hence promoting fresh ideas. Application of copyright law to medical practices raises ethical questions. Limiting the use of patented techniques will help to block the dissemination of life-saving therapies, increase the disparity in healthcare, and cause great financial losses to hospitals and physicians. Legal execution of patent enforcement in hospital environments may be challenging and could compromise patient care. By means of case studies and legal research, this study demonstrates how difficultly the present system of patent law in medicine may be applied. It also examines potential responses like fair licensing agreements, legislative reforms, and cooperative approaches to fresh ideas. Policymakers, healthcare professionals, legislators, and innovators have to negotiate these challenges in order to strike a balance between fostering innovation and guaranteeing everyone has equitable access to healthcare. This paper emphasises the need of fast aligning property law with the moral standards of the medical industry. By developing practical ideas, this research aims to contribute to the fair and long-lasting nature of medical invention. This will benefit everyone else in the globe as well as the creators.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Ballardini RM, Lee N. Limitations and exceptions in european patent law – challenges from 3D printing technology. In: Ballardini RM, Norrgård M, Partanen J, editors. 3D printing, intellectual property and innovation – insights from law and technology. Kluwer Law Int; 2017.
Lerner, J. and J. Tirole (2015): “Standard-essential patents,” Journal of Political Economy, 123, 547–586.
Contreras J, et al. Pledging intellectual property for COVID-19. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38:1146–1149.
Baron, J. and D. F. Spulber (2018): “Technology standards and standard setting organizations: Introduction to the searle center database,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27, 462–503.
Gurgula O, Hull J (2021) Compulsory licensing of trade secrets: ensuring access to COVID-19 vaccines via involuntary technology transfer. J Intell Prop Law Pract:1242–1261
Llobet, G. and J. Padilla (2016): “The optimal scope of the royalty base in patent licensing,” The Journal of Law and Economics, 59, 45–73.
Mäkitie A, et al. Medical applications of rapid prototyping – three-dimensional bodies for planning and implementation of treatment and for tissue replacement. Duodecim. 2010;126(2):143–151.
Van Zimmeren E et al (2022) Compulsory licensing for expensive medicines. Health services research (HSR). Brussels. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). 2022. KCE Reports 356. D/2022/10.273/35. Accessed 29 July 2022
Verboeket V, et al. Additive manufacturing for localized medical parts production: a case study. IEEE Access. 2021;9:25818–25834.
Cooley LLP (2020) UK-specific guidance for the manufacture and supply of certain medical devices for Covid-19.
McMahon A (2020) Global equitable access to vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for COVID-19: the role of patents as private governance. J Med Ethics:142–148
Mendis D, et al (2020) 3D printing: how an emerging technology may help fight a pandemic. IPR Info/6
Mahr D, Dickel S. Rethinking intellectual property rights and commons-based peer production in times of crisis: the case of COVID-19 and 3D printed medical devices. J Intell Prop Law Pract. 2020;15(9):711.
Beer N, et al. Scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines – a case study. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2021;4:100073.
Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2020) Dutfield and Suthersanen on global intellectual property. 2nd edn, Edward Elgar Eduardo U, Ramani S. Access to medicines after TRIPS: is compulsory licensing an effective mechanism to lower drug prices? A review of the existing evidence. J Int Bus Policy. 2020;3(4):367–384.
Ehrnsperger J, Tietze F. Patent pledges, open IP, or patent pools? Developing taxonomies in the thicket of terminologies. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0221411.
Bently L, Sherman B. Limiting patents. In: Hilty RM, Liu K-C, editors. Compulsory licensing – practical experiences and ways forward. Springer; 2015. pp. 313–332.
Manero A, et al (2020) Leveraging 3D printing capacity in times of crisis: recommendations for COVID-19 distributed manufacturing for medical equipment rapid response. Int J Environ Res Pub Health 17(13)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
