1. The EU “will not acknowledge any patent for embryonic stem cells”

It is reported that “the ECJ, the highest court of the EU, reconfirmed its existing position of not acknowledging the commercial use of the research of embryonic stem cells extracted from human embryos.”  The lawsuit began as the German Court acknowledged a patent for stem cell technology. Professor Oliver Bruestle of Bonn University of Germany was successful in differentiating stem cells into nerve cells and had the art patented by the Court in 1997. Against this, Greenpeace raised a lawsuit contending that the German Court’s decision on the patent violated the regulations of the EU. Subsequently the German Court ruled in favor of Greenpeace, and as Professor Bruestle appealed against the decision, the Federal Court of Germany requested the ECJ for interpretation criteria for the phrase and term “human embryo”. Professor Bruestle was concerned about such a ruling, saying, “Investors would be reluctant to make investments because it is impossible to secure profitability through a patent.”

2. The Patent Court of Korea “rules Docetaxel trihydrate invalid”

The Patent Court announced that it nullified the patent for Taxotere trihydrate, which is the main component of the anticancer drug Taxotere injection. The background of this case is that Boryung Co., Ltd. filed a claim for a patent invalidation trial with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal against the above patent of Sanofi on June 19, 2009, and the Tribunal ruled the patent invalid on of May 11 last year. Against the decision, the patent right holder Sanofiaventis appealed to the Patent Court. The application for the above patent was filed seven years after the date of application for the source material patent, and its duration is until 2014. A thing which merely had three waters added to the source material Taxotere was filed for a new patent and registered.

3. “Investigation of unfair trade practices such as dumping export will be made earlier”

Jung Taik Hyun, chairman of the Korea Trade Commission, said on the 6^th, “We will mend the system in such a way that investigation can start as soon as possible if application is made by small and medium businesses for investigation of unfair trade practices such as dumping export.” He said a remedial system for small and medium businesses is necessary because they are more vulnerable than large businesses to anti-dumping export. “At present, it takes two months to review the documents submitted by companies and decide as to whether an investigation should be conducted. But we will have an investigation start as soon as possible if small and medium businesses apply for it. He also explained, “Recently the trend is that investigations related to infringement on intellectual property right is increasing. Last year the investigations relating to intellectual property rights reached 10 cases.”

4. Korea signs on the Nagoya Protocol relating to biogenetic resources

Young Sook Yu, Minister of Environment, recently attended the signing ceremony for the Nagoya Protocol relating to the Approach to and Profit Sharing of Biogenetic Resources held at the UN Headquarters in New York, U. S. A. to sign the protocol.  The Nagoya Protocol relates to sharing the profits with the resource providing countries when the biogenetic resources of foreign countries are utilized. It is expected to have a great influence on biological industries and biogenetic resources securing markets. A problem is that when the Nagoya Protocol takes effect, drug companies that have been developing new drugs with imported natural products will shoulder a heavy burden. Up until now drug companies have used genetic resources of foreign countries as they please, but when the Nagoya Protocol comes into effect, they have to pay royalties to the country of origin of raw materials by agreement. A representative example is the Swiss pharmaceutical company Loche that has a monopoly for producing Tamiflu. Tamiflu is made by analyzing Star Anise, a Chinese indigenous plant. If the Nagoya Protocol comes into effect, Loche should share profits with China.

5. The Supreme Court “Copying to sell invalid patent products is not patent infringement”

The Supreme Court ruled that making and selling products similar to a product for which a patent invalidation decision is confirmed is not patent right infringement. The Supreme Court announced on 10^th that the Supreme Court Section 3 (Chief Judge: Supreme Court Justice Young Chul Shin) annulled and remanded the original decision that gave a guilty verdict to Mr. X Park (36) and Mr. X Kim (47) who were indicted on a patent infringement charge (violation of patent law) as they manufactured similar products. The Court ruled, “The plaintiff’s invention of a collapsible ladder has no unobviousness so the patent right has become null and void from the beginning; therefore, the plaintiffs’ act of producing and selling actual specimens cannot be deemed to constitute patent right infringement”, adding, “Since the products that the defendants made cannot be deemed to be similar or identical to the ones that the plaintiffs made, this does not constitute a patent infringement act, either.”

6. The Supreme Court ruled the patent for ‘Chalddeok Cookie’, a modified application for patent of ‘Chocochalddeok Pie,’ invalid

The Supreme Court Section 1 (Chief Judge: Supreme Court Justice Il Young Min) announced on the 5^th that it confirmed the original decision that had ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the patent invalidation suit that Samjin Food filed against Cheongwoo Food that makes ‘Chalddeok Cookie’, on the grounds that “there is no illegality in the original decision that had canceled the patent decision on Cheongwoo Food.” The Court ruled, “The application for a patent for which a person without a patentable right has filed constitutes a reason for patent invalidation, and ‘invention’ refers to refined creation of a technical idea by using natural law; therefore, Cheongwoo Food, which had no substantial contribution to the creation of the art falls under the cases of no right holders receiving the patent, so patent registration is void under patent law.” It added, “The patent that Cheongwoo Food submitted after modifying a business secret that an employee of a competition company brought while working for one company after another is no more than a modification that common technicians adopt,” and pointed out, “Therefore, the manufacturing method of ‘Chalddeok Cookie’ has no substantial differences from that of ‘Chocochalddeok Pie.”