AIPPI P I MONTRÉAL (25-30 juin 1995) Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Industrielle

Transcription

1 AIPPI Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Industrielle L A A.. I P I MONTRÉAL 1995 Annuaire 1995/V XXXVl Congrès de Montréal 1995 (25-30 juin 1995) Rapports des Groupes Q 128 Brevets et protection de l'environnement

2 Dans le cas normal, les rapports et les résumés des groupes nationaux sont publiés sans correction du contenu, du style et de l'ortographie. The reports and the summaries from the National Groups are normally reproduced without alteration in content, style and spelling. Die Berichte und Zusammenfassungen der Landesgruppen werden im Normalfall ohne Korrekturen von Inhalt, Stil und Orthographie wiedergegeben. L' Ed iteur AIPPI Zurich 1995 ISBN No Edité au nom de l'aippi par J. David MEISSER, Klosters (Suisse) Assistants de lediteur: Jean-François LEGER, Genève, Lecteur des textes français Brian A. YORKE, Bâle, Lecteur des textes anglais Adrian ZIMMERLI, Zurich, Lecteur des textes allemands Prix Sfrs. 30.-; distribution gratuite aux members de l'aippi Price Sf rs. 30.-; distribution free of charge to the membres of AIPPI Preis SFr. 30.-; unentgeltlich für Mitglieder der lvfgr Production: Gasser AG, Druck und Verlag, 7007 Chur (Suisse)

3 Question Q 128- Question Q Frage Brevets et protection de l'environnement Patents and protection of the environment Patente und Umweltschutz Rapports des Groupes Groups Reports Berichte der Landesgruppen Ill

4

5 Question Q 128 Brevets et protection de l'environnement L'AIPPI avait, il y a plus de vingt ans, au Congrès de Mexico en 1972, inscrit au programme à long terme la question de la protection de l'environnement sous la référence 65 C; et le groupe polonais, qui avait été à l'initiative de la Question, avait établi un rapport intéressant (Annuaire 1973/I, page 533) proposant plusieurs mesures concrètes. Mais l'aippi n'a pu, à l'époque, procéder à cette étude. De manière générale, on entend par 'environnement' l'ensemble des conditions susceptibles d'agir sur les organes vivants et sur les activité humaines. L'environnement affecte, de manière favorable ou défavorable, tous les êtres humains dans quelque pays où ils se trouvent. Des catastrophes écologiques survenues dans certains pays peuvent avoir des conséquences très graves dans d'autres pays, même éloignés. Sur le plan international, les esprits sont parfaitement conscients de l'importance et de la gravité du problème, car c'est l'avenir même de la planète qui peut être mis en cause. La Conférence des Nations Unies sur l'environnement et le développement, qui s'est tenue à Rio en 1992, a étudié de manière très approfondie les problèmes posés par la protection de l'environnement. Les discussions ont fait apparaître le conflit qui pouvait naître avec des droits de Propriété Industrielle. Il convient de rappeler d'autre part l'accord de libre échange nord-américain (ALENA) signé par le Canada, les Etats-Unis et le Mexique, qui prévoit à son article 1709 la possibilité, pour un Etat, d'exclure de la brevetabilité des inventions s'il apparaît nécessaire d'interdire leur exploitation commerciale, notamment pour éviter de nuire à l'environnement. Et l'article 27, paragraphe 2- de l'accord concernant la Propriété Industrielle (TRIPS), signé dans le cadre du GATI, comporte littéralement la même disposition. Il paraît donc nécessaire que l'aippi examine les problèmes posés par les brevets et la protection de l'environnement, tout d'abord en faisant l'inventaire des solutions nationales, et en examinant ensuite les solutions qui peuvent être trouvées à ces problèmes. I. Etat de la réglementation nationale: Les groupes sont invités à faire le point de la situation législative, réglementaire, doctrinale et jurisprudentielle, sur la question. 1. Existe-t-iI dans le pays des problèmes particuliers posés aujourd'hui par la protection de l'environnement, par rapport aux droits de Propriété Industrielle? V

6 Les milieux concernés sont-ils sensibles à ce problème? Existe-t-il des dispositions spécifiques concernant la question: limite de la possibilité de déposer des brevets lorsque les inventions couvertes par les brevets seraient considérées comme susceptibles de porter atteinte à l'environnement; dispositions particulières pour les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement? Le nombre des brevets consacrés à la protection de l'environnement, est-il actuellement en augmentation dans le pays? Existe-t-il des dispositions permettant de soumettre à une licence forcée un brevet concernant la protection de l'environnement, comme les licences forcées que certains pays connaissent dans l'intérêt de la Défense Nationale, de la santé publique, ou encore de l'économie nationale? Il. Existe-t-il un conflit entre la brevetabilité d'une invention, et la protection de ('environnement? Le Traité ALENA et l'accord TRIPS ci-dessus rappelés posent expressément la question, puisqu'ils autorisent un Etat à exclure de la brevetabilité des inventions si l'exploitation de ces inventions pourrait nuire à l'environnement. Ne faut-il pas là faire une distinction entre: - l'exploitation d'une invention qui peut se révéler néfaste et qui devrait donc être interdite; - et la brevetabilité d'une telle invention? La délivrance d'un brevet est-elle en elle-même de nature à porter atteinte à la protection de l'environnement? III. Les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement doivent-ils bénéficier d'un régime particulier? Il convient de définir ce que l'on entend par 'brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement'. li s'agit tout d'abord des brevets dont l'objet même est directement d'assurer la protection de l'environnement, par exemple le traitement des effluents gazeux ou des eaux polluées. VI

7 Mais de tels brevets peuvent aussi porter sur des inventions qui, sans avoir pour objet direct d'améliorer la protection de l'environnement, aboutissent à cet effet en évitant, ou en réduisant, les atteintes à la nature et les nuisances. En raison de l'importance de la protection de l'environnement, qui intéresse la collectivité tout entière, ne faut-il pas comme en matière de santé publique par exemple, prévoir un régime particulier pour les brevets portant sur des inventions améliorant la protection de l'environnement? 1. Dispositions favorisant l'examen et la délivrance de tels brevets: Faut-il adopter le principe de telles mesures particulières, et en ce cas les groupes sont invités à donner leur avis, par exemple sur les règles suivantes: Les brevets relatifs aux technologies de protection de l'environnement devraient-ils être examinés plus rapidement? Devraient-ils être soumis à des taxes réduites? Devraient-ils faire l'objet d'une publication particulière pour les porter rapidement et efficacement à la connaissance du public intéressé? Pourrait-on créer des agences nationales, qui suivraient attentivement la délivrance de tels brevets et se mettraient en contact avec les entreprises les plus susceptibles de mettre en oeuvre ces techniques, de manière à favoriser la conclusion d'un accord avec le breveté? Les groupes peuvent formuler toute autre proposition. 2. Droits des tiers d'utiliser les brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement: a) Doit-on, en raison de l'importance de la protection de l'environnement, accorder aux tiers un droit d'utiliser les brevets couvrant des inventions relatives à l'environnement? Et, en ce cas: ce droit doit-il être consacré par une licence obligatoire si les parties n'aboutissent pas à un accord amiable? au contraire, le breveté peut-il s'opposer à l'utilisation de sa technologie brevetée dans le domaine? si le principe d'une licence obligatoire n'est pas admis, doit-on envisager des mesures gouvernementales telles que la création d'une agence pour faciliter les négociations entre le breveté et les tiers désireux d'exploiter la technologie brevetée? VII

8 b) faudrait-il aller jusqu'à obliger le titulaire d'un savoir-faire en la matière à le communiquer à des tiers pour assurer une exploitation efficace de l'invention? IV. Aspects internationaux de la question: 1. Les problèmes d'environnement dépassent incontestablement le seul territoire national. Doit-on envisager de prévoir une harmonisation des lois de brevet portant sur la protection de l'environnement? une telle harmonisation pourrait-elle être envisagée dans le projet d'harmonisation du Droit des Brevets discuté à l'ompi? doit-elle être prévue dans la Convention de Paris? N'est-il pas préférable de prévoir une convention séparée du type de celle élaborée à la Conférence de Rio de 1992? C) Faut-il prévoir un régime particulier pour les pays en voie de développement, leur permettant d'accéder rapidement au savoir-faire en matière de technologie relative à la protection de l'environnement? d) Peut-on envisager l'institution d'une organisation internationale qui acquérerait des droits sur les brevets (Patent Pool), et qui transférerait à des tiers ces droits sous forme de licence? Conclusion Les Groupes sont donc invités à établir un rapport sur l'ensemble de ces questions, et à formuler toute suggestion utile complémentaire notamment sur les développements les plus récents dans leur pays ou au niveau international. VIII

9 Question Patents and protection of the environment More than twenty years ago, at the Mexico Congress in 1972, AIPPI had included in its long-term program the question of protection of the environment, under the heading 65C; the Polish Group which had raised the Question had set out an interesting Report (Yearbook 1973/I, page 533) proposing a number of specific measures. At that time however AIPPI, was unable to continue with that study. Broadly speaking, the term 'environment' is used to mean the whole of the conditions which can act on living organisms and on human activities. The environment has a favourable or unfavourable effect on all human beings in whatever country they may be. Ecological disasters occurring in some countries may have very serious consequences in other countries, even though they are far away. At an international level, there is full awareness of the importance and the gravity of the problem as it is the very future of the planet which may be involved. The United Nations Conference on the environment and development which was held in Rio in 1992 carried out a detailed in-depth study of the problems raised by protection for the environment. The discussions there revealed a conflict which could arise with industrial property rights. On the other hand, there sould be borne in mind the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was signed by Canada, the United States and Mexico, and which in Article 1709 thereof provides for the possibility for a State to exclude inventions from being patentable if it seems necessary to prevent commercial exploitation thereof, in particular to avoid damaging the environment. Article 27, paragraph 2 of the agreement concerning industrial property (TRIPS), which was signed within the framework of GAlT, includes the same provision in the same words. lt seems therefore that AIPPI should consider the problems raised by patents and protection of the environment firstly by listing the national solutions and then examining the solutions which could be found for such problems. - I. State of the national rules The Groups are invited to set out the situation in regard to legislation, rules, doctrine and case-law, on this question. 1. Are there in the country in question particular problems which are raised nowadays by protection for the environment, in relation to industrial property rights? IX

10 Are the circles concerned aware of this problem? Are there specific provisions concerning the question: limit on the possibility of filing applications for patents when the inventions covered by the patents would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment; and particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment? Is the number of patents involved with environmental protection currently increasing in the country in question? Are there provisions which permit a compulsory licence on a patent concerning environmental protection, such as the compulsory licences to be found in some countries in the interests of national defence, public health or the national economy? Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? The NAFTA Treaty and the TRIPS agreement referred to herein above expressly set out this question, since they entitle a State to exclude inventions from being patentable if exploitation thereof could damage the environment. Should a distinction not be made here between: - the exploitation of an invention which may be found to be harmful and which would therefore have to be prohibited; and - patentability of such an invention? Is the grant of a patent in itself of such a nature as to affect environmental protection? Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? What is meant by 'patents relating to environmental protection' should be defined. These are firstly patents whose very object is directly to provide environmental protection, for example the treatment of gaseous effluents or polluted waters. However, such patents may also relate to inventions which, without having the direct object of improving environmental protection, achieve this end by preventing or reducing adverse effects on nature and causes of harm. X

11 Because of the importance of environmental protection, which involves the whole of society, should there not be, as in regard to public health for example, a particular system for patents relating to inventions which enhance environmental protection? 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents: Should the principle of such particular measures be adopted, and in this case the Groups are invited to express their views for example on the following rules: should patents relating to environmental protection technologies be examined more quickly? should they enjoy reduced fees? should they be the subject of particular publication so that they are quickly and effectively brought to the knowledge of the interested public? would it be possible to set up national agencies which would carefully follow the grant of such patents and which would get into contact with the undertakings which are most likely to carry such techniques into effect so as to promote the conclusion of an agreement with the patentee? The Groups can set out any other proposal. 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection: In consideration of the importance of environmental protection, should third parties be granted a right to use patents covering inventions relating to the environment? And, in that case: is that right to be established by a compulsory licence if the parties do not arrive at an amicable agreement? in contrast, can the patentee resist use of his patented technology in the field involved? if the principle of a compulsory licence is not accepted, must governmental measures be envisaged, such as the establishment of an agency to facilitate negotiations between a patentee and third parties who wish to exploit the patented technology? should we go as far as obliging the owner of know-how in the matter to communicate it to third parties to ensure effective exploitation of the invention? Xl

12 IV. International aspects of the Question: 1. There is no doubt that environment problems go beyond just national territory. Should we envisage providing for harmonisation of patent laws relating to environmental protection? could such harmonisation be envisaged in the draft for harmonisation of patent law which is being discussed by WIPO? should it be set forth in the Paris Convention? Is it not preferable to provide for a separate convention of the type drawn up at the Rio Conference in 1992? Should there be a particular system for the developing countries, to permit them to have fast access to the know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection? Is it possible to envisage the establishment of an international organisation which would acquire rights in respect of patents (Patent Pool) and which would transfer such rights to third parties in the form of a licence? Conclusion The Groups are therefore invited to draw up a report on all of these questions and to put forward any additional useful suggestion, in particular relating to the most recent developments in their country or at an international level. XII

13 Frage Q 128 Patente und Umweltschutz Schon vor über 20 Jahren hat die AIPPI anlässlich des Kongresses von Mexiko die Probleme des Umweltschutzes mit der Frage 65 C in ihr langfristiges Programm aufgenommen; die polnische Landesgruppe hatte diese Frage veranlasst und diesbezüglich einen interessanten Bericht mit verschiedenen konkreten Vorschlägen verfasst (Jahrbuch 1973/I, ). Aber die AIPPI hat im damaligen Zeitpunkt keine Studie an die Hand nehmen können. Im allgemeinen versteht man unter Umwelt die Gesamtheit der Bedingungen, welche sich auf die lebenden Organismen und die menschlichen Aktivitäten auswirken können. Die Umwelt beeinflusst in günstiger oder ungünstiger Weise alle Menschen, wo auch immer sie sich befinden. Ökologische Katastrophen in bestimmten Ländern können in anderen, auch weit entfernten Ländern sehr schwere Auswirkungen haben. Auf internationaler Ebene ist man sich der Bedeutung und der Gefährlichkeit des Problems bewusst, denn die ganze Zukunft unseres Planeten steht auf dem Spiel. Im Jahre 1992 hat der Umweltgipfel der Vereinten Nationen in Rio die Umweltschutzprobleme sehr gründlich untersucht. Bei den Diskussionen zeigten sich auch mögliche Konflikte im Gebiete des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes. In diesem Zusammenhang ist auch die Vereinbarung über die nordamerikanische Freihandelszone zwischen Kanada, Mexiko und den USA (NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement) zu erwähnen. Art dieser Vereinbarung sieht vor, dass ein Mitgliedstaat die Patentierung von Erfindungen verbieten kann, falls deren kommerzielle Auswertung untersagt werden müsste, um eine Schädigung der Umwelt zu vermeiden. Es erscheint somit notwendig, dass die AIPPI die Probleme betreffend Patente und Umweltschutz an die Hand nimmt, zuerst durch ein Inventar betreffend die bereits bestehenden Lösungen auf nationaler Ebene und sodann durch eine Prüfung der möglichen Lösungen. I. Bestehende Regelungen auf nationaler Ebene Die Landesgruppen werden aufgefordert, die derzeitige Situation auf der Ebene der Rechtsvorschriften, der Judikatur und der Doktrin darzulegen. 1. Bestehen derzeit spezifische Probleme betreffend den Umweltschutz in bezug auf Rechte des gewerblichen Eigentums? Sind sich die interessierten Kreise dieser Probleme bewusst? XIII

14 Bestehen spezielle Vorschriften über folgende Fragen: Beschränkung der Möglichkeit von Patenthinterlegungen, wenn die zu schützenden Erfindungen möglicherweise die Umwelt beeinträchtigen könnten; spezielle Vorschriften in bezug auf Patente, welche den Umweltschutz zum Gegenstand haben? Ist die Anzahl der Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz derzeit im Zunehmen begriffen? Bestehen Vorschriften betreffend eventuelle Zwangslizenzen für Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz, wie die in einigen Ländern vorgesehenen Zwangslizenzen im Interesse der Landesverteidigung, des Gesundheitswesens oder der nationalen Wirtschaftsentwicklung? Il. Bestehen Konflikte zwischen der Patentierung von Erfindungen und dem Umweltschutz? Der bereits erwähnte Freihandelsvertrag NAFTA und die Uebereinkunft betreffend TRIPS (im Rahmen des GAIT) erwähnen ausdrücklich diese Probleme, denn sie ermächtigen die einzelnen Staaten zum Verbot der Patentierung von Erfindungen, deren Anwendung der Umwelt schaden könnte. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob man hier nicht zwischen zwei Varianten unterscheiden sollte: - Praktische Anwendung einer Erfindung, welche schädliche Auswirkungen haben könnte und deshalb verboten werden sollte; - Grundsätzliche Patentierbarkeit einer solchen Erfindung? Kann die Patenterteilung für eine solche Erfindung an sich den Umweltschutz beeinträchtigen? Ill. Sollte für Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz eine besondere Regelung gelten? Zunächst ist klarzustellen, was unter "Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz" zu verstehen ist. Dazu gehören zuallererst Patente, welche direkt den Schutz der Umwelt zum Gegenstand haben, z.b. die Behandlung von Abgasen oder verschmutzten Abwässern. XIV

15 Aber es gibt auch Patente über Erfindungen, welche nicht direkt die Verbesserung des Umweltschutzes zum Gegenstand haben, jedoch trotzdem eine solche Auswirkung haben, weil sie Beeinträchtigungen und Schädigungen der Natur verhindern oder vermindern. Im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung des Umweltschutzes, welcher die ganze Allgemeinheit betrifft, stellt sich die Frage, ob man nicht wie im Gebiet des Gesundheitswesens für Patente in bezug auf Erfindungen zur Verbesserung des Umweltschutzes eine Sonderregelung vorsehen sollte? 1. Vorschriften, um die Prüfung und die Erteilung solcher Patente speziell zu fördern: Sind solche Vorschriften grundsätzlich zu befürworten? Wenn ja, werden die Landesgruppen gebeten, sich über folgende Varianten zu äussern: Sollen Patente betreffend Technologien für den Umweltschutz rascher geprüft werden? Sollen für solche Patente geringere Gebühren gelten? Sollen solche Patente Gegenstand einer besonderen Veröffentlichung bilden, um dem interessierten Publikum rascher und effizienter zur Kenntnis zu gelangen? Könnte man zur Ueberwachung von Patenterteilungen betreffend den Umweltschutz besondere nationale Agenturen schaffen; diese Agenturen müssten dann Kontakt aufnehmen mit solchen Unternehmungen, welche für die Anwendung der patentierten Erfindungen am ehesten geeignet erscheinen; dies sollte den Abschluss von Vereinbarungen mit den Patentinhabern begünstigen? Andere Vorschläge von seiten der Landesgruppen sind willkommen. 2. Rechte Dritter zur Anwendung von Patenten betreffend den Umweltschutz a) Muss man im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung des Umweltschutzes Dritten ein Recht zum Gebrauch von Erfindungen betreffend den Umweltschutz einräumen? Wenn ja: soll dieses Recht durch eine Zwangslizenz realisiert werden, falls sich die Parteien nicht gütlich einigen können? oder soll der Patentinhaber den Gebrauch seiner patentierten Technologie im Gebiete des Umweltschutzes verbieten können? falls die Lösung einer Zwangslizenz abgelehnt wird, soll man staatliche Massnahmen wie z.b. die Schaffung einer speziellen Agentur in Aussicht nehmen, um xv

16 Verhandlungen zwischen den Patentinhabern und Interessenten an der Auswertung der patentierten Technologie zu erleichtern? b) Sollte man soweit gehen, dass der Inhaber eines Know-how im Gebiet des Umweltschutzes verpflichtet wird, sein Know-how zwecks effizienter Verwertung Dritten zur Verfügung zu stellen? IV. Internationale Aspekte 1. Es Ist unbestritten, dass die Umweltprobleme den nationalen Rahmen überschreiten. Soli man in bezug auf den Umweltschutz eine Harmonisierung der Patentgesetze in Aussicht nehmen? wäre eine solche Harmonisierung im Rahmen der Entwürfe des OMPI zur Harmonisierung der Patentrechte vorzusehen? oder sollte diese Harmonisierung im Rahmen der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft realisiert werden? Wäre nicht ein besonderes internationales Abkommen vorzuziehen, entsprechend der 1992 am Umweltgipfel in Rio ausgearbeiteten Vereinbarung? Sollte man für die Entwicklungsländer besondere Regeln vorsehen, damit diese Länder zum Know-how betreffend die Technologie für den Umweltschutz rascher Zugang erhalten? Könnte man eine internationale Organisation in Aussicht nehmen, welche an den in Frage stehenden Patenten die Rechte erwirbt (Patent Pool) und sodann zum Gebrauch dieser Patente Lizenzen einräumt? Schlussfolgerung Die Landesgruppen werden eingeladen, gesamthaft über die vorerwähnten Fragen Bericht zu erstatten und ergänzende nützliche Bemerkungen vorzubringen, insbesondere in bezug auf die letzten Entwicklungen in ihrem eigenen Land oder auf internationaler Ebene. XVI

17 Australie Australia Australien Report Q 128 in the name of the Australian Group by J G HINDE Patents and protection of the environment t. State of the national rules There is nothing in the Australian Patents Act 1990 which specifically relates to patents concerned with protection of the environment. The Act does provide, however, that the Commissioner may refuse to accept an application, the use of the subject matter of which would be contrary to law. Australia does have a Ministry of the Environment. lt is conceivable that that Ministry might preclude the use of certain products the subject of patent applications, thus entitling the Commissioner to exercise his discretion to refuse an application, but this circumstance is considered unlikely. Australian authorities are certainly concerned with environmental protection. To date, however, it would seem that no correlation is perceived between patent protection on the one hand and environmental protection on the other. There is no limit on the filing of patent applications in Australia, no matter what the subject matter. There are no particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment. No statistics are published in respect of patent applications for protection of the environment so it is impossible to indicate whether the number of patents in this area is increasing. We would have thought, however, that no significant increase is in evidence. There are no special compulsory license provisions concerning patents for environmental protection. The Australian Act provides that any granted patent may be the subject of a compulsory license application. Such an application may be made when a period of three years has elapsed from the date of sealing the patent on the basis that the reasonable requirements of the public in respect of the subject matter of the patent have not been met by the patentee or his licensee. Further, Federal and State authorities have an absolute right to use any patented invention upon the payment of reasonable compensation to the patentee ("Crown use"). 1

18 II. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? We feel it is important that a distinction be made between the exploitation of an invention which may be found to be harmful and which would therefore need to be prohibited, on the one hand, and patentability of such an invention, on the other. lt seems to us that prohibition of the use of a product because of its harmful environmental impact, is properly the concern of environmental authorities rather than the Patent Office. Without more, we are of the view that the grant of a patent in itself can neither affect nor effect environmental protection. lt may be, for example, that a patent whose exploitation would have beneficial environmental effect, is not worked by a patentee and to that extent environmental benefit which might otherwise have been achieved is foregone. However, compulsory licensing provisions of the Patents Act and the availability of Crown use, referred to above, would seem to provide at least some remedy for such a situation. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? lt is believed that the current patent system, albeit with some possible modifications, is adequate to protect and ensure the exploitation of patents having beneficial environmental impact. There is, for example, no specific patent system as regards public health in Australia. Administration of the health system and the exploitation of pharmaceutical patents, for example, is undertaken by authorities other than the Patent Office. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents: The fundamental purpose of the patent system is to encourage research. lt is proper that research into environmental protection and appropriate protection of the fruits of that research by patent grant, should be encouraged. lt is, of course, no encouragement to research in that field if a patentee is to see his rights eroded compared with the rights of other patentees and to run the gauntlet of a greater bureaucracy. On that basis the answers to the questions posed are as follows: We would see no harm in more rapid examination of patents concerned with environmental protection, at the instigation either of the patent applicant or the Commissioner of Patents. Reduced fees might be appropriate provided the price of reduced fees is not some trade off of rights by the patent applicant or patentee. We have no argument with any particular form of publication for such patents or applications, but we would not be in favour of early publication without the authority of the patent applicant or patentee. 2

19 d) As to the setting up of national agencies as suggested, it seems to us that patent development is best left to patentees and to the private sector. In principle, minimal government intervention in the affairs of individuals is seen as appropriate. 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection: Again, we see it as important that the rights of patentees in respect of patents relating to environmental protection, not be less than those of other patentees, otherwise encouragement to invent in the field of environmental protection may be lessened. We see licences as of right in respect of environmental protection patents as being undesirable. We believe the current compulsory licensing and Crown use provisions adequate. It is not in the usual nature of patent rights that patentees resist use of their patented technology, although the oil companies do have some reputation in this regard. Again, compulsory licensing provisions and Crown use provisions as they currently exist would seem adequate where a patentee refuses to work a patent in respect of environmental protection technology. Where Crown use provisions are in force, there would seem to be no need for the establishment of a further government agency to facilitate negotiations between a patentee and third parties who wish to exploit the patented technology. Any Crown authority may simply tender for exploitation of the technology and pay the appropriate compensation to the patentee. b) lt would seem that if a compulsory license were granted or if Crown use were undertaken in respect of a patent affording environmental protection, then at the appropriate level of compensation, the patentee might be reasonably required to pass on knowhow to the licensee or Crown authority. IV. International aspects of the Question: 1. a) We would expect that harmonisation of patent laws in respect of environmental protection would be as easy to achieve as harmonisation of patent laws in general. No harm would be done by attempting to achieve such harmonisation in the draft for harmonisation of patent law currently under discussion by WIPO. Incorporation in the Paris Convention of special provisions concerning patents for environmental protection might be desirable, but would also be most difficult to achieve. b) Whether by way of addition to the Paris Convention or a separate convention, we would have thought the problems in arriving at international agreement in this area, identical. 3

20 Know-how is a different thing from patent rights. It seems premature to suggest a particular system for transfer of know-how to developing countries before any particular system for the encouragement of research into environmentai protection areas is in place. It could well be argued, in principle, that the developing countries have particular needs, but encouraging patentees, most of whom are nationals of the developed countries, to readily part with their know-how is considered unreasonable. It is possible to envisage the establishment of an international organisation such as that suggested, but we would think it fair to suggest that it might well be a long time before any such organisation is in effect. Summary I. There are no special provisions under the Australian Patents Act in respect of patents related to environmental protection. Environmental protection cannot be adversely affected by patent grant alone. III. There is no need for a special patent system in respect of inventions concerned with environmental protection, but modifications to the current system may be appropriate. iv. internationally, we envisage great difficulties in the establishment of a harmonized system of patent rights for inventions of a particular class. Résumé Il n'y a pas de clause spéciale à la loi Australienne au sujet des brevets de patentes concernant la protection de l'environnement. Il. Le permis de brevet patente, per se, n'a pas affecté la protection de l'environnement d'aucune façon. li n'y a pas lieu d'avoir une patente spéciale concernant les inventions sur la protection de l'environnement, mais certains changements sur le présent système pourrait être approprié. Sur le plan international, nous envisageons de grandes difficultés dans l'établissement pour un système plus harmonieux de droits de patents sur les inventions de la sorte. 4

21 Zusammenfassung Das australische Patentgesetz enthält keine besonderen Bestimmungen für Patente, die mit Umweltschutz zu tun haben. Patenterteilung an sich kann den Umweltschutz nicht in nachteiliger Weise beeinflussen. Keine speziellen Patente werden für Erfindungen gebraucht, die mit Umweltschutz zu tun haben, doch mögen Abänderungen an der derzeitigen Gesetzgebung angezeigt sein. Auf internationaler Ebene sehen wir groß Schwierigkeiten für die Einführung eines harmonisierten Patentrechts für Erfindungen einer bestimmten Kategorie voraus. 5

22 Belgique Belgium Belgien Report Q 128 In the name of the Belgian Group by P. THEUNIS (Chairman), G. LEHERTE and B. VAN REEPINGHEN Patents and protection of the environment 1. State of the national rules Nowadays, no particular problems are raised by protection of the environment, in relation to industrial property rights, although the circles concerned are aware of this problem. With respect to the hung' of applications no specific limits are foreseen. However, attention is drawn to Art. 4, par. 2 of the Belgian Patent Law and Art. 53 a of the European Patent Convention. "Patent shall not be granted in respect of invention the exploitation of which would be contrary to "order public". The latter term may be construed such that inventions the exploitation of which causes substantial prejudice to the environment are deemed to be contrary to "order public"." There exist no particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment. The number of patents involved with environmental protection is currently clearly increasing. However, it is difficult to distinguish between ecological and non-ecological inventions. A patent for an invention aimed at enhancing the productivity of a chemical process by reducing the amount of raw materials required: can such patent be considered as covering "an ecological invention" simply because it reduces raw materials consumption? There are no provisions which permit a compulsory license on a patent concerning environmental protection. 6

23 2. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? Such conflict does not exist, and a clear distinction should be made between the patentability of such inventions and their exploitation may be found to be untawlul. Therefore, the grant of a patent in itself is not of such a nature as to affect environmental protection. Apart from this, it further should be noted that the grant of a patent does not confer to its proprietor an exploitation right; it only confers a right to prevent third parties from exploiting the patented invention. 3. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? Distinction The Belgian group is of the opinion that no particular system should be foreseen for patents concerning environmental protection; in this respect it also should be noted that a clear distinction between patents concerning environmental protection and other patents cannot be made. In case such a principle should be adopted, the Belgian Group is opposed to accelerated examination, reduced fees, a particular publication system, and the set up of national agencies as suggested under item 1 d) of the AIPPI questionnaire. a. The Belgian Group is clearly opposed to the introduction of compulsory licenses but can accept the introduction of special measures so as to promote or facilitate the conclusion of amicable licensing agreements between the parties. b. Under no condition the owner of know-how should be obliged to communicate its know-how to ensure effective exploitation of the invention. 4. International aspects of the Question in general, the Belgian Group is of the opinion that the possible conflict between environmental protection and the exclusive rights offered by patents, should not be solved in the framework of legally binding international conventions or national law, in particular not in the framework of international convention or national law relating to patents. Rather national and international instruments (such as the RIO conference in 1992) should increase public pressure governments to enhance awareness and action items on environmental protection. Such elements do effectively promote investments and research into environmental protection as a consequence of which patents covering such invention will also steadily increase. The exploitation inclusive of licensing of such patents should then be equally promoted by various measures, e.g. fiscal stimuli, governmental awards, etc. 7

24 Summary No special legislation is available in Belgium regarding patents for environmental protection; the Belgian Group is of the opinion that within the framework of the patent law no special measures tor such inventions should be foreseen. Résumé En Belgique il n'y a pas de législation spéciale applicable aux brevets écologiques; le groupe belge est d'avis qu'il ne faut pas prévoir de mesures spéciales pour de tels brevets dans le cadre de la loi des brevets. Zusammenfassung Es gibt keine spezielle Gesetzgebung in Belgien bezüglich Umweltschutzpatente; die belgische Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass innerhalb des Rahmens des Patentgesetzes keine Sondermassmahmen für derartige Erfindungen ergriffen werden sollten. 8

25 Brésil Brazil Brasilien Report Q 128 by the Brazilian Group Patents and protection of the environment Question: Are there problems between environmental protection and Industrial Property rights in your country today? Are the compenent sectors sensitive to this problem? Reply: Yes. With the increasing awareness of the various segments of the population in this regard, at the time of the discussions at the National Congress and the Federal Senate, an increasing concern in not allowing patents that could interfere with the Biodiversity, this being one of the reasons why a new industrial property law has not yet finally passed. Question: Are there specific provisions relating to the question: limit of the possibility of filing patent applications if the inventions protected by the patents are considered susceptible of aggression to the environment; special provisions for patents relating to the protection of the environment? Reply: For the first item of this question the reply is Yes. Article 9(a) of the Industrial Property Code, Law No. 5,772 of 21/12/1971, provides that inventions contrary to the laws, health, public security, religious cults and feelings worthy of respect 9

26 and veneration are not patentable. This article does not specify what laws would be contrary to the patentability of an invention. As to particular provisions relating to patents directed to the protection of the environment, there is nothing specific in the Patent Code in force. Question: Has the number of patents relating to the protection of the environment increased yearly in your country? Reply: The INPI does not have any statistics on the number of inventions for protection of the environment. Question: Are there provisions allowing the request for compulsory licence of a patent relating to the protection of the environment, such as the compulsory licences permitted in certain countries in the interest of the national defence, public health or even the national economy? Reply: Yes. Article 33 1 of the Industrial Property Code provides that "For reasons of public interest, a special, non-exclusive compulsory licence for the working of an unworked patent or one for which actual working does not meet the demand on the market may be granted to third parties applying for it. Besides, Article 39 of the Code in force further provides for the expropriation of a patent when considered to be in the interest of National Security or when national interests require its vulgarization or exclusive exploitation by a body of the federal administration or one that participates in the latter. II. Question: Is there any conflict between the patentability of an invention and the protection of the environment? Should a distinction not be made between: - the working of an invention that could be harmful and that should be interdicted; 10

27 - and the patentability of such an invention? Does the grant of a patent already bring with it the possibility of becoming contrary to the protection of the environment? Reply: - the grant of a patent does not at all regulate or authorize its use, but only rewards the inventor during a predetermined period of time and excludes third parties from using it. Thus, the world has granted patents for the most varied weapons, for chemical products in general and biotechnological products, provided that such inventions meet the patentability requirements, since the use of such inventions is to be regulated by specific legislations. III. Question: - Should the patents referring to the protection of the environment have the benefit of a special regime? lt is well to define what is understood here by: 'patents relating to the protection of the environment". These are patents whose object in itself directly ensures protection to the environment, as for instance, the treatment of gaseous effluents or polluted water. But such patents could also relate to inventions that, without the purpose of directly improving the environment, reach this objective by avoiding or reducing the aggressions to nature and the living beings. Reply: - We consider NO. An invention, whatever area it belongs to, provided that it meets the patentability requirements, will have the right to patent protection, and no special treatment may or should be given to determined areas, which would represent a discrimination. The use of the patent, Yes; it should be encouraged through regulations or even national laws, in case it refers to areas that interest the whole of Mankind. Question: - Due to the importance of the protection of the environment, which interests the whole collectivity, would it not be fit, for instance, as far as public health is concerned, to foresee a special regime for patents, therefore relating to patents the foster the protection of the environment? 11

28 Reply: - Inventions whose object interests the environment can embrace the most varied branches of knowledge, from mechanics, through electricity and electronics to biology and chemistry, among others. Many times, at the moment when an invention is conceived, it may not interest the environment, but as technology evolves it becomes an invention that interests the environment. lt woujd thus be subjective to determine the importance of a given area to the detriment of others, for instance, that of health, medicaments and others, to derive benefit from a special patent regime. Our comment The following questions do not apply to the Brazilian case, since Brazil does not intend to give a differentiated and specific treatment to the matter through the Industrial Property Law, for which reason they need not be answered. Questions: - At what moment should it be defined that an invention relates to the environment? - How does a common invention pass to the specially favoured class of protection to the environment, after its application has been filed? - How would an invention that has ceased to be an environment-protecting invention be taken out of the specially favoured class? 1. Provisions that favour the examination and grant of such patents: - In the event of adopting the principle of such special measures and, in this case, the groups are invited to give their comments, for instance, on the following rules: Should the patents relating to environment-protecting technology be examined more rapidly? Should they be subject to reduced fees? C) Should they be the object of a special publication in order to bring them to the cognizance of the interested public more rapidly and effectively? d) Can national agencies be created, which shall follow the grant of such patents attentively and establish contact with the companies more capable of manufacturing these techniques, so as to favour the conclusion of an agreement with the inventor? The groups can formulate any other proposals. 12

29 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to the protection of the environment: due to the importance of environment protection, should third parties be given the right to utilize the patents for inventions relating to the environment? And, in this case: should this right be confirmed by a compulsory licence, if the parties do not reach a friendly agreement? Instead, can the patentee oppose to the utilization of its technology patented in that area? in case the principle of a compulsory licence is not admitted, should governmental measures be foreseen, such as the creation of an agency for facilitating the negotiations between the patentee and third parties wishing to exploit the patented technology? Can one go so far as to force the holder of a know-how' in the matter to communicate it to third parties in order to ensure an effective exploitation of the invention? lv. International aspects of the Question: 1. The environment problems unquestionably goes beyond the national territories. Should a harmonization of patent laws relating to environment protection be foreseen? Could such a harmonization be foreseen in the project of harmonization of the PATENT LAW discussed at the OMPI? Should it be provided for in the Paris Convention? Would it not be preferable to foresee a separate Convention like that worked out at the Rio Conference in 1992? Should a special regime be foreseen for the developing countries, allowing them to access the "know-how" in technology relating to the protection of the environment? Could the institution of an international organization be foreseen which would acquire the rights to patents (Patent Association) and transfer such rights to third parties in the form of a licence? 13

30 In conclusion: The groups are invited to supply a report of all these questions and to formulate useful complementary suggestions regarding the latest developments in their countries or at the international level. 14

31 Canada Canada Kanada Report in the name of the Canadian Group Eli J. McKHOOL (Chairman), Jean-Pierre FORTIN, Tokuo HIRAMA, Philip Mendes DA COSTA and H. Roger HART Patents and protection of the environment Introduction A review of the Polish Group Report 65C produced at the Mexico Congress in 1972 indicates that it envisaged a degree of international or supranational harmony and striving for the common good of humanity which unfortunately has not materialized to date, to an extent that would permit many of the proposals of that Report to be implemented. Indeed, the Report itself stated that some of its proposals were too far advanced. Nevertheless, the Polish Report recognized in the first sentence: The threat to the natural human environment without doubt is primarily a result of the tempestuous development of industry and rapid technical progress. As the threat has remained and increased, the Canadian Group of AIPPI welcomes this opportunity to investigate how patents or any form of industrial property could be adapted to aid in protecting the environment. Most industrialized countries treat new inventions and technological developments, including those related to the environment, as private property. Inventors and companies are prepared to divulge these inventions to the public through the patent system in return for a significant degree of monopoly on the use of said inventions. This is the basis of the patent system and would have to be taken into account in any modification intended to protect the environment. I. State of the national rules 1. Are there in Canada particular problems which are raised nowadays by protection of the environment, in relation to industrial property rights? Canada has serious environmental problems, although probably no more serious than in many other countries. Some of these problems involve pollution of the St. Lawrence River, 15

32 said to be due to the effluent from paper mills or chemical or aluminium plants, which have resulted in disease in members of many species such as the Beluga Whale, and have rendered the river in most areas unfit for swimming. The Great Lakes are also polluted. Canada, like all other countries is threatened by the decrease in the ozone layer. The cause of these problems is not directly related to patents, but since patents are generally considered to constitute an incentive to innovation and new technology which may be required in order to address such problems, the relationship between patents and protection of the environment deserves study. Are there specific provisions concerning the question: limit on the possibility of filing applications for patents when the inventions covered by the patents would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment; and particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment? There are no specific provisions concerning restrictions on the possibility of filing applicatians for patents on inventions which would affect the environment, and no particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment. Is the number of patents involved with environmental protection currently increasing in Canada? As will be seen below, we have no means of providing an answer to this question, although, from the general interest in protecting the environment and the initiatives set forth below of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) and the Canadian Standards Association, it is reasonable to assume that the number of patents involved with the environment is increasing. The Canadian Patent Office has been involved in a project for the last few years, intending to collate and analyze statistics on inventions that have an impact on the environment. The Patent Office was at one point requested by the Federal Department ENVIRONMENT CANADA to categorize inventions according to whether they are friendly to the environment, neutral or harmful. These projects seem to have become dormant without coming to completion, at least partly because of the difficulties of defining harmful inventions. Some chemicals which are intrinsically harmful if released in the environment can be vital to industrial and other commercial processes and products which are life-saving or may be important for other environmentally desirable projects. There is at this time in use in the CIPO a patent classification that is specifically directed to an aspect of protection of the environment. This is International Class B 09 B-Disposal of Solid Waste. 16

33 There is no simple way to determine whether the number of environmentally interesting patent applications is increasing or not. At the moment the Patent Office has not delivered any information on that subject. Again there is the very significant difficulty of defining what is exactly environmentally harmful or helpful. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has been carrying out some projects in the way of drafting environmental design guidelines to minimize environmental impact from manufacturing to recycling and reuse. This was set out in an article in Engineering Dimensions July/August 1994, pages 22 to 24. Although the article does not make reference to IP, the guidelines could certainly have an impact on the number of patent applications directed to subject matter which minimize environmental impact. The article points out that several organizations which are devoted to the setting of standards such as the International Standards Organization (ISO) are also engaged in developing guidelines to promote environmentally sound product design. Thus even though some organizations have found it difficult to define what is harmful and what is helpful to the environment, other organizations such as the CSA and the ISO have been able to develop guidelines which are designed to encourage protection of the environment and discourage its degradation. 4. Ai-e there provisions which permit a compulsory license on a patent concerning environmental protection, such as the compulsory licenses to be found in some countries in the interest of national defence, public health or the national economy? The Canadian Patent Act contains some provisions for the grant of a compulsory license for abuse of patent rights, in Section 65 of the Act, as permitted under the Paris Convention. Prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) proclaimed in 1993 through implementing legislation, the basis for such a grant had included among other things "non-working in Canada of an invention capable of being worked in Canada", such as by supplying the Canadian market by importation. Very few licenses had been granted on that basis, and in fact none in the past 10 years. In any case, those provisions regarding non-working in Canada have been deleted from the Act as it stands now. In living memory there have been no compulsory licenses granted in Canada under the remaining definitions of "abuse" in Section 65, but it is possible that our courts could decide that the suppression of an environmentally important invention, or a refusal by the patentee to satisfy the market in Canada, or the other related definitions set out in Section 65 to define abuse, could give rise to a compulsory license. It should be noted that the considerations by which the Commissioner is to be guided according to Section 66(4) of the Patent Act include securing to the patentee the maximum advantage consistent with the invention being worked by the licensee at a reasonable profit. This wording encourages the Commissioner to award a generous royalty to the patentee. In any case, such licenses would not be granted if the patentee was supplying the market adequately. Also, such a license would not require the licensee to actually "work" the invention in Canada, now that major changes have been made in Section 65, relating to working. 17

34 Also, one must consider Section 19 of the Patent Act, which authorizes the Government of Canada to apply to the Commissioner of Patents for a license to use a patented invention. Such use will be authorized only after the Commissioner is satisfied that efforts have been made to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable commercial terms. There are no provisions dealing with compulsory licensing which are specific to environmental protection. Thus, an invention that would eliminate the release of chlorofluorocarbons to damage the ozone layer, would not benefit from any special procedure to encourage wide use of the invention. The only possibility (not used in the past) would be to force the granting of a compulsory license in the event the patentee did not supply his invention to an extent sufficient to satisfy the demand in Canada. An important advance in the protection of the environment appears to have been implemented in Canada in the enactment of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1988 (CEPA). Paragraph 2 of the Act broadly defines duties including both preventive and remedial measures to protect the environment, the application of knowledge, science and technology to resolve environment problems and to protect the environment from the release of toxic substances, including controls on the manufacture, dumping or release of pollutants. The CEPA provides a means of regulating the introduction of industrial and scientific innovations including those in biotechnology, from the very earliest stages through to the product marketing. Directors and Officers of a company can be held liable for offences under the Act. lt is not clear that the CEPA can require the licensing of intellectual property rights. Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? The NAFTA and the GATT agreements on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), both of which have been signed by Canada, make it clear that patentability encourages the exploitation of the patented invention. When the exploitation of certain classes of inventions is not desirable, as when they would cause 'serious prejudice to the environmenr, the member states (Canada, the United States and Mexico in the case of NAFTA) may deny them patentability, as mentioned in Question 128. In the NAFTA, Article 1709(2) would enable the Canadian Government to exclude harmful inventions from patentability, and reads as follows: '2. A Party may exclude from patentability inventions if preventing in its territory the commercial exploitation of the inventions is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that the exclusion is not based solely on the ground that the Party prohibits commercial exploitation in its territory of the subject matter of the pate nt.' Article 27(2) of the TRIPS Agreement is to the same effect and reads as follows: 18

35 "2. Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by domestic law. lt may therefore be concluded that when an invention is clearly inimical to the environment, its patentability and protection of the environment are in conflict. This is not to say that any substance or any process which may be used in a manner harmful to the environment should thereby be denied patentability when there are other uses which are benign or indeed helpful to the environment. The above-identified statutes such as CEPA would be operative to prevent actions to be taken which would harm the environment, whether or not a patent has been granted. Since patented inventions often cover products or processes of manufacture or methods of use which have many diverse applications, (primarily with chemicals), it may be argued that relatively few patent applications would fall under the definition of 'an invention, the commercial exploitation of which would cause serious prejudice to the environment". However, in those rare cases where the exploitation of an invention would be found to be definitively injurious to the environment, there is no reason why it should enjoy patent protection, and the resulting encouragement to exploit it in Canada. Is the grant of a patent in itself of such a nature as to affect environmental protection? For the reason already given, that an important purpose and advantage of patentability is to encourage the exploitation of an invention, then the grant of a patent for an invention that would cause serious harm to the environment would affect environmental protection. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? It is difficult to define which patents could be considered to be related primarily to environmental protection. The term "environmental protection" hés a very broad meaning and a great variety of inventions can be said to be for protecting the environment. For example, could it be said that all patents relating to nuclear power stations help to protect the environment, because the exploitation of such patents would reduce pollution caused by electric generation by conventional power stations burning oil or coal? On the other hand, it may be argued that nuclear power stations harm the environment because they produce nuclear waste, the disposal of which has not been resolved. Another argument may be that a composition of a herbicide which effectively reduces the amount of the active herbicide is for environmental protection, even though it might encourage more use of the herbicide. The test for patents on such inventions to qualify should be high, such as "primarily" related to environmental protection. 19

36 Because of the importance of environmental protection, which involves the whole of society, should there not be, as in regard to public health for example, a particular system for patents relating to invention which enhance environmental protection? Recognizing that the protection of the environment goes beyond the current generation, the Canadian Group favours any changes to the patents laws that, while not undermining the basic concepts of patentability of inventions, at the same time would be tailored to favour patents for environmentally meritorious inventions. The Canadian Group favours changes to the patent laws that would facilitate the obtaining of a "patent term extension" of the normal statutory term for any invention that is found to be environmentally meritorious, subject to the condition that the patentee either directly or through licensees is making the invention widely available on reasonable terms. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents: Should patents relating to environmental protection technologies be examined more quickly? Yes. The rules under the Canadian Patent Act provide that an application can be advanced in its prosecution upon submission of a request supported by an affidavit setting out the fact on which it is based. The usual criteria for acceleration of prosecution include the public interest, need to commercialize the invention and grant licenses, or prevent infringement. These grounds could be extended to include explicitly the ground that the exploitation of the invention will protect the environment. Such action would result in expedited examination and issuance of the application to patent, and this would be in the public interest. lt may well be that a particular applicant may not want to expedite the prosecution of its application relating to environmental protection, wishing to let the examination take its normal course, and postponing the payment of the examination fee for the period which is permitted under the Regulations. However it is open to any third party to instigate such examination by the payment of the fee, which would then render the application subject to examination. Should they enjoy reduced fees? Official patent application and maintenance fees in Canada are not so elevated as to form an impediment to protection of significant or commercially viable inventions, at least in the first several years. Small entities are entitled to half rates. Reduced fees for environmentally desirable inventions would not likely increase the number of important environmental patents. 20

37 Should they be the subject of particular publication so that they are quickly and effectively brought to the knowledge of the interested public? The public can monitor patent applications for environmentally desirable inventions by reviewing the Canadian Patent Office Records (CPOR) which is published weekly. Canadian applications are laid open to the public eighteen months after the priority date, which facilitates early access to the technology disclosed. Would it be possible to set up national agencies which would carefully follow the grant of such patents and which would get into contact with the undertakings which are most likely to carry such techniques into effect so as to promote the conclusion of an agreement with the patentee? While it would be possible, it is probably not likely that a national government agency would be set up to promote the exploitation, perhaps by licensing, of patents helpful to the environment. Perhaps a private body could be set up which would collate information about such published applications and issued patents on a voluntary basis and disseminate the information to members or subscribers. 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection. In consideration of the importance of environmental protection, should third parties be granted a right to use patents covering inventions relating to the environment? Yes in specific cases, and under strict conditions. Provisions as such already exist in the Canadian Patent Act relating to the possibility of compulsory licenses for "abuse" of the patent rights, which should apply when an invention relating to environmental protection is not made available to the public on reasonable terms, or the Patentee does not fully supply the Canadian market. Should we go as far as obliging the owner of know-how in the matter to communicate to third parties to ensure effective exploitation of the invention? While this would be desirable, in the case of inventions of vital importance to the environment, it would go beyond the terms of the usual compulsory licensing agreement, and could in fact have a negative effect in deterring applicants from applying for patents on inventions relating to the environment. IV. International aspects of the Question 1(a) Should we envisage providing for harmonization of patent laws relating to environmental protection? As to international aspects of the question there is no doubt that environmental problems go beyond national borders. Problems of the oceans and the atmosphere are of course 21

38 paramount when considering international problems. lt would clearly be desirable to have patent laws harmonized and perhaps regionalized, to the extent that they deal with patents which might impact on the environment. However, in order to be efficient, such harmonization should extend concurrently with harmonization of environmental laws, particularly in a regional market economy (such as NAFTA). Countries forming part of the same market should not compete against each other by having lower standards as to environmental laws in order to attract pollution prone industries, or potentially hazardous biotechnology research, or the like. Could such harmonization be envisaged in the draft for harmonization of patent law which is being discussed by WIPO? Patent harmonization talks of a general nature have been going on for years in WIPO and elsewhere, and will continue. lt may not be possible to insert discussions about harmonization with respect to the environment into such talks, in view of the fact that there is already so much difficulty in reaching any general agreement. However, in the future, this should be considered and form an integral part of the patent harmonization process. Should it be set forth in the Paris Convention? Yes - perhaps as an amendment to article 4 Ouater. lt is to be noted that the NAFTA clause and the provisions in the TRIPS section of the GAIT, both respect this article 4 Quater of the Paris Convention; inventions, exploitation of which is prohibited by domestic law (for instance, for reasons of trade policy, social or religious or political reasons) are not to be excluded from patentability for that reason alone, but may only be excluded on the cited grounds such as causing serious prejudice to the environment. Is it not preferable to provide for a separate convention of the type drawn up at the Rio Conference in 1992? Since patents are acknowledged promoters of invention and their commercial exploitation, protection of the environment would benefit from inclusion in harmonization of patent laws. Should there be a particular system for the developing countries, to permit them to a fast access to the know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection? A system which would enable developing countries to have faster access to patent information, rights, and know-how relating to environmental protection would be desirable, even though not likely to advance their progress if their national environmental laws are not enhanced. Is it possible to envisage the establishment of an international organization which would acquire rights in respect of patents (Patent Pool) and which would transfer such rights to third parties in the form of a license? 22

39 lt might be possible to establish such an international organization, perhaps under the United Nations, which could acquire rights on a voluntary basis from patentees to form a patent pool with patents and know-how, and which would be in a position to transfer such rights and information to third parties in the form of a license. This was one of the suggestions made during the Rio Conference. However, this is not likely to achieve any results unless environmental laws are similarly enhanced. Summary and additional conclusions There are no specific provisions in Canadian law relating to the obtaining or licensing of Canadian patents which are relevant to the protection of the environment. However, the Patent Act contains certain provisions relating to abuse of patent rights, which might eventually be used to require the patentee to grant a compulsory license for an invention, favourable to the environment, which is not being marketed in a manner which supplies the Canadian market adequately at reasonable cost. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other Canadian statutes have provisions which are presently being actively enforced, and are available to aid in protecting the environment. There is no inherent conflict between patentability and protection of the environment when the invention concerned is benign or favourable to aiding the environment. When the sole use contemplated is one which is detrimental to the environment, then patentability and protection of the environment are in conflict. The Canadian patent system should be modified to assist in protecting the environment. Expedited examination could be obtained by an applicant for the issuance of a patent relating to environmental protection technologies. lt would be helpful to legislate a system of patent term extensions for such inventions, provided the invention is made widely available by the patentee for use on reasonable terms. The Canadian Group believes that a strong patent system is essential to a country that adheres to the principles of free market, such as Canada. However, it is also felt that the environment is paramount and as such the Canadian Group expresses its concern about unregulated industrial development vis-à-vis the environment. The Canadian Group supports the view that the patent system should not be used in any way which hinders the protection of the environment. The Canadian Group has noted that the world is moving towards a more global economy. Inasmuch as patent laws are by their nature territorial to any national market, there may be a discrepancy between the harmonization of patent laws and the environment, as environmental consequences cannot be limited territorially. The Canadian Group feels that countries forming part of the same regional market should not 23

40 compete by having lower environmental protection standards in order to attract pollution prone industries which might enhance their industrial development through the use of patents. 7. Private parties should be encouraged to take advantage of national laws of unfair competition enacted pursuant to article 1Ot(2) of the Paris Convention when a competitor obtains an advantage by flouting environmental laws. In some countries, unfair competition statutes have been used to obtain cease and desist orders or damages on this ground in favour of the injured competitor. While this is not directly related to patents, it is a recourse relating to industrial property, and therefore appropriate for consideration by the AIPPI. Sommaire et conclusions supplémentaires II n'y a pas de provisions spécifiques dans la Loi Canadienne reliées à l'obtention ou licence de brevets qui sont pertinents à la protection de l'environnement. Cependant, la Loi sur les brevets contient certaines provisions relativement aux abus de droits. Ceux-ci pourrait tôt ou tard être employé pour ordonner la concession d'une licence pour une invention brevetée qui aide à la protection de l'environnement et qui n'est pas commercialisé sur le marché Canadien dans une mesure adéquate et à des conditions équitables. La Loi Canadienne sur la Protection de l'environnement ainsi que d'autres Loi Canadiennes ont des provisions qui sont actuellement appliquées activement pour la protection de l'environnement. II n'y a aucun conflit en soi entre la brevabilitée d'une invention et la protection de l'environnement quand l'invention concernée a un effet bénin ou favorable à l'environnement. Lorsque l'emploi de l'invention qui est contemplé en est un qui est néfaste à l'environnement, un conflit peut existé entre la brevabititée de l'invention et la protection de l'environnement. La réglementation nationale Canadienne par rapport aux droits de Propriété Industrielle devrait être modifié affin d'assister la protection de l'environnement. Par exemple, l'examen accéléré pourrait être obtenu par le demandeur lorsque l'invention traite d'une technologie concernant la protection de l'environnement. II serait utile de légiférer un système pour rallonger le terme du brevet pour de telles inventions, pour vu que l'invention soit mis disponible par le breveté à des termes raisonnables. Le Groupe Canadien croit qu'un système fort est essentiel dans un pays qui adhère aux principes de marché libre, tel qu'au Canada. Cependant, il est aussi reconnu que la protection de l'environnement est de la plus haute importance et ainsi le Groupe Canadien exprime son souci vis-à-vis les développement industriel non-réglementé. 24

41 Le Groupe Canadien soutient le point de vue que les réglementations ne devrait en aucun cas être employé pour entraver à la protection de l'environnement. Le Groupe Canadien a noté que le monde bouge vers une économie plus globale. Puisque les lois sur les brevets sont par leur nature territoriales pour tout marché national, il peut y avoir un décalage entre l'harmonisation des lois sur les brevets et l'environnement, comme les conséquences écologiques ne peuvent pas être délimité territorialement. Le Groupe Canadien considère qu'aucun pays faisant partie du même marché régional ne devraient concourir en abaissant les normes sur la protection de l'environnement pour attirer des industries enclines à pollué et qui pourrait ainsi améliorer leur développement industriel par l'emploi de brevets. Les groupes privées devraient être encouragées à tirer parti des lois nationales de compétition injuste (unfair competition) promulguées dans l'article 10 (bis (2)) de la Convention de Paris quand un concurrent obtient un avantage en narguant les lois sur la protection de l'environnement. Dans certains pays, des lois nationales de compétition injuste (unfair competition) ont été employés pour obtenir une cessé (cease and desist) ou dédommagements à la faveur du concurrent blessé. Même si elles ne sont pas directement relié aux brevets, ces lois sont un recours valable par rapport à la propriété industrielle, et approprié donc pour la considération de l'aippi. Zusammenfassung und zusätzliche Schlussfolgerungen Es bestehen keine spezifischen Bestimmungen unter kanadischem Gesetz bezüglich der Erwerbung oder Lizensierung kanadischer Patente, die sich auf Umweltschutz beziehen. Das Patentgesetz umfasst jedoch gewisse Bestimmungen, die sich auf Missbrauch von Patentrechten beziehen, die eventuell benutzt werden könnten, den Patentinhaber zu zwingen, eine Zwangslizenz für eine der Umwelt günstigen Erfindung zu verleihen, sollte diese nicht in einer Weise vertrieben werden, die den kanadischen Markt ausreichend und zu einem angemessenen Preis beliefert. Das kanadische Umweltschutzgesetz sowie andere kanadische Statuten schliessen Bestimmungen ein, die zur Zeit aktiv geltend gemacht werden und zur Förderung des Umweltschutzes zugänglich sind. Es besteht kein inhärenter Widerspruch zwischen Patentfâhigkeit und Umweltschutz, wenn die in Frage stehende Erfindung umweltfreundlich oder positiv für die Umwelt ist. Sollte die einzige beabsichtigte Anwendung umweltschädlich sein, dann stehen Patentfähigkeit und Umweltschutz in Konflikt. Das kanadische Patentwesen sollte abgeändert werden, um das Schützen der Umwelt zu unterstützen. Beschleunigte Prüfung könnte von einem Anmelder für die Erteilung eines Patentes erhalten werden, wenn es sich auf Umweitschutztechnologien bezieht. Es würde nützlich sein, ein System zur Verlängerung der Schutzdauer für solche Erfin- 25

42 dungen zum Gesetz zu machen, vorausgesetzt, dass die Erfindung weitgehend zum Gebrauch unter tragbaren Bedingungen vom Patentinhaber zur Verfügung gestellt wird. Die kanadische Gruppe glaubt, dass ein starkes Patentwesen fundamental für ein Land wie z.b. Kanada Ist, das sich an die Bestimmungen eines freien Marktes hält. Man glaubt jedoch auch, dass die Umwelt von grösster Bedeutung Ist und in diesem Zusammenhang möchte die kanadische Gruppe ihre Bedenken über ungeregelte Industrieentwicklung gegenüber der Umwelt äussern. Die kanadische Gruppe unterstützt die Ansicht, dass das Patentwesen in keiner Art benutzt werden sollte, die dem Schutz der Umwelt hinderlich ist. Die kanadische Gruppe hat zur Kenntnis genommen, dass die Welt sich in Richtung einer weltumfassenderen Wirtschaft bewegt. In Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass Patentgesetze von Natur aus territorial zu irgendeinem Nationalmarkt sind, könnte eine Unstimmigkeit zwischen der Harmonisierung von Patentgesetzen und Umwelt existieren, da Umweltkonsequenzen nicht territorial begrenzt werden können. Die kanadische Gruppe glaubt, dass Länder, die zum gleichen Gebietsmarkt gehören, nicht mit niedrigeren Umweltschutznormen konkurrieren sollten, um verschmutzungsgeneigte Industrien anzuziehen, die eventuell ihre lndustrieentwicklung durch den Gebrauch von Patenten erhöhen würden. Privatpersonen sollten unterstützt werden, Landesgesetze bzgl. unlauteren Wettbewerbes auszunutzen, die gemäss Artikel lobis(2) der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft erlassen worden sind, wenn ein Konkurrent einen Vorteil durch Missachten von Umweltsgesetzen erhält. In einigen Ländern sind unlautere Wettbewerbsstatuten benutzt worden, um auf diesem Grunde beruhende Unterlassungsbefehle oder Schadenersatz zugunsten des geschädigten Konkurrenten zu erhalten. Obwohl dies sich nicht direkt auf Patente bezieht, ist es ein Regress bzgl. gewerblichen Eigentums und sollten demzufolge von der AIPPI mit in Betracht gezogen werden. 26

43 Danemark Denmark Dänmark Report in the name of the Danish Group by Bo Hammer JENSEN and Soren Stenderup JENSEN Patents and protection of the environment I. State of national rules. Are there in Denmark particular problems which are raised nowadays by protection for the environment, in relation to industrial property rights? Generally speaking, one cannot say that there are particular problems raised by the protection of the environment in Denmark in relation to industrial property rights. Are there specific provisions concerning the question: - limit on the possibility of filing applications for patents when the inventions covered by the patents would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment; and - particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment? Under Consolidated Act No. 587 of 2 July 1993 on Patents hereinafter referred to as the Patent Act' ) there are no limits of filing patent applications when the inventions covered by the patents would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment, nor are there any particular provisions for patents concerning the protection of the environment. Is the number of patents involved with environmental protection currently Increasing in the country in question? The Danish Patent Authority does not possess specific statistical information to this effect but it is the general view among the members of the Danish Group that the number of patents involved with environmental protection is currently increasing. 27

44 4. Are there provisions which permit a Compulsory licence on a patent concerning environmental protection, such as the compulsory licences to be found In some countries In the Interest of national defence, public health or the national economy? Section 47 of the Patent Act provides that when required by important public interests, any person who wishes to exploit an invention commercially for which another person holds a patent may obtain a compulsory licence to do so. This provision applies also to inventions which may enhance the protection of the environment. lt should be noted that this provision has only been applied in one instance, in which the patent involved concerned an invention bearing upon the interests of the defence of the country. Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an Invention and the protection of the environment? The Danish Group is of the opinion that a distinction should be made between, on the one hand, the exploitation of an invention which may be found to be harmful and which might therefore have to be prohibited and, on the other hand, the patentability of such an invention. The grant of a patent in itself is not of such a nature as to affect the protection of the environment. lt is the use of the invention - be it patented or not - which may damage the environment. Whether or not such inventions may lawfully be used should not be governed by the patent legislation but by the environmental legislation. The patent right does not influence on which products and processes may lawfully be manufactured and used under the environmental legislation. The patent right does not authorize a positive right of using the patented invention; it is only stipulating that the inventor may prohibit others from using the invention. A prominent member of AIPPI, Professor Mogens Koktvedgaard has expressed it in the following way: lt is exactly this negative content of the patent right which enables it to be handled without ethical considerations.1 The Danish Group has noted that the TRIPS agreement under the GATT Treaty, Article 27.2 makes it possible for member states to exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to avoid serious prejudice to the environment. The Danish Group is against such an exclusion from patentability for the reasons given earlier. Furthermore, as mentioned under item 2 the Danish Group is in general of the opinion that the number of invention categories excluded from patentability should be kept at a minimum. 1 Cf. Mogens Koktvedgaard Larebog I Immaterlalret (Textbook on intellectual property Law), 2nd edition, Cph. (1991), p

45 In this connection the Danish Group would like to state that an exclusion from patentability of genetic resources such as plants or animals has never been seen to conserve such resources. Thus the Danish Group believes that the requirement of reproducibility in patent laws is a strong means of conserving the biodiversity of the global environment. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular sy-stem? "Patents relating to environmental protection" are defined as (1) patents whose very object is directly to provide environmental protection and (2) such patents relating to inventions which, without having the direct object of improving environmental protection, achieve this end by preventing or reducing adverse effects on nature and causes of harm. The Danish Group agrees to this definition but would like to point out that from a legislative point of view the definition would be very difficult in practice to employ if patents concerning environmental protection are to enjoy benefits of a particular system. The Danish Group recognizes the importance of environmental protection which involves the whole of society. However important the protection of the environment is, a number of other topics in contemporary society are as important as the protection of the environment. In the view of the Danish Group there is at present no need to introduce a particular system for patents relating to inventions which enhance environmental protection. Setting up a specific system for one kind of inventions should not be introduced without in-depth discussions about whether or not to introduce specific rules on inventions bearing upon important issues in general such as public health. The Danish Group favours, generally speaking, the patent legislation to be "clean in the sense that considerations of the environment, public health etc. which are indeed important should be governed by other legislation than the patent legislation. The present rule in Section 47 of the Patent Act on compulsory licences due to important public interests are sufficient to safeguard a proper distribution of the technologies involved in the protection of the environment. If, however, specific measures relating to inventions which enhance the protection of the environment were to be adopted, the Danish Group would prefer a system according to which third parties would be granted a right to use patents covering inventions relating to the environment that are essential to public interest in the form of compulsory licenses rather than establishing another easier procedure for the granting of patents concerning inventions which may enhance the protection of the environment. Furthermore, as mentioned at item 111(2), the Danish Group believes that the present rules relating to compulsory licensing are sufficient to deal with problems that could 29

46 arise in respect of environmental protection. Additional rules for compulsory licensing are thus not needed in the view of the Danish Group. The Danish Group fears that if a certain kind of patent applications is to be given more favourable conditions under terms of the procedure before the Patent Authority, this may lead to the de facto establishing of first class and second class patent applications. In order to secure a smooth treatment of the patent procedure applicants may be expected to prepare their patent applications in such a way that they would appear as concerning inventions which may enhance the protection of the environment. This would in the Danish Group's view be detrimental to the whole patent system. If the principle of using existing rules of compulsory licences is not accepted, the Danish Group would not envisage governmental measures such as the establishment of an agency to facilitate negotiations between a patentee and third parties who wish to exploit the patented technology. The Group considers it more likely, that Danish authorities would take a more practical approach by setting up joint venture companies with private patentees to use and export the know-how on environmental protection. Where in normal patent licence agreements it is usual to include also the know-how related to the licensed patents, such know-how is not covered by the statutory rules on compulsory licences. The Danish Group considers that obliging the owner of know-how in the matter to communicate it to third parties to ensure effective exploitation of the invention is going too far, inter alia, because it must be considered nearly impossible to ascertain what know-how does the patentee have in addition to the patent. Without the patentee being willing to cooperate with the licensee concerning the transfer of such know-how, trying to force a patentee to communicate this know-how to third parties is deemed to fail. The only positive measures the Danish Group would envisage in respect of giving preferential treatment to inventions/inventors in the field of environmental protection would be to provide for reduction in fees for patent applications and patents in this area, or to set up means of funding such fees and drafting and prosecution costs in connection with obtaining patent protection on an international scale. IV. International Aspects of the Question. a) Should we envisage providing for harmonisation of patent laws relating to environmental protection? - could such harmonisation be envisaged in the draft for harmonisation of patent law which is being discussed by WIPO? - should it be set forth in the Paris Convention? As stated above, the Danish Group is of the view that there is no need to adopt specific measures concerning inventions which may improve the protection of the environment. 30

47 If patent laws relating to environmental protection are to be harmonised, the Danish Group is of the opinion that this should take place within the framework of the Paris Convention rather than within the framework of WIPO. b) Is it not preferable to provide for a separate convention of the type drawn up at the Rio Conference in 1992? The Danish Group does not consider it preferable that a separate convention be drawn up. C) Should there be a particular system for the developing countries, to permit them to have fast access to the know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection? In the view of the Danish Group the developing countries does not need a particular system which will enable them to have access to the know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection. As indicated above transfer of know-how can only be successfully accomplished on terms mutually agreed between the owner of the know-how and the receiving party. In the view of the Danish Group any system that would force the owner of know-how to give access thereto on unacceptable terms would be predestined to failure. Furthermore, it is the belief of the Danish Group that the utilization of technologies and know-how relating thereto by the developing countries is influenced to a such larger extent by other factors than access to the technologies and know-how. Specific factors to be mentioned are infra-structure and education. If, however, such a system should be deemed necessary it should in the opinion of the Danish Group not be established under the patent legislation and the patent conventions but under a specific program. In connection with questions lil.3.b and c the Danish Group notes that the 'Biodiversity" convention set up at the Rio Conference in 1992 is aimed at protection and conservation of the biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including access thereto and transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies (Article 1). The Biodiversity Convention establishes for the first time the sovereign rights of a nation to the genetic resources within its territory. lt furthermore confers an obligation to the states to conserve the diversity and use these resources in a sustainable manner. These intentions and facts are acknowledged and welcomed by the Danish Group. lt notes, however, also that both access to genetic resources and technologies (Articles 15 and 16) shall be on mutually agreed terms and that any intellectual property rights shall be recognised and consistent with effective and adequate protection thereof. 31

48 The Danish Group agrees to such principles, but warns against any interpretation thereof that could be considered as expropriation of the rights of private industry to technologies. Such interpretations would in our view work counter active to the purpose of any system relating to the promotion of transfer of technologies. lt is also noted by the Danish Group that the Biodiversity Convention is extremely ambiguous in its wording and recommends that extreme caution be taken if a separate instrument should be set up in relation to transfer of technologies relating to protection of the environment in general. d) Is it possible to envisage the establishment of an international organisation which acquire the rights in respect of patents (Patent Pool) and which would transfer such rights to third parties in the form of a licence? The Danish Group does not consider such a development likely or desirable. Summary This question deals with patents and the protection of the environment. The Danish Group recognizes the importance of environmental protection which involves the whole of society. In the view of the Danish Group there is, however, at present no need to introduce a particular system for patents relating to inventions which enhance environmental protection. The present provisions in the Danish Patent Act on compulsory licences due to important public interests are sufficient to safeguard a proper distribution of the technologies involved in the protection of the environment. The Danish Group favours the patent legislation to be 'clean" in the sense that considerations of other issues be protected by other legislation than the patent legislation. Accordingly, programs which permit third world countries to have fast access to know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection should not touch upon the patent legislation. Résumé Cette question traite des brevets et de la protection de l'environnement. Le Groupe Danois reconnaît l'importance de la protection de l'environnement, qui concerne l'ensemble de la société. A l'avis du Groupe Danois, il n'est cependant pas nécessaire à présent d'introduire un système particulier de brevets pour les inventions qui améliorent la protection de l'environnement. Les dispositions actuelles de la loi danoise sur les brevets relatifs aux licences rendues obligatoires par des intérêts publics importants sont suffisantes pour assurer une distribution adéquate des technologies utilisées dans la protection de l'environnement. Le Groupe Danois est partisan de la "propreté" de la législation sur les brevets, dans le sens que des considérations concernant d'autres sujets devraient être protégées par une législation autre que la législation sur les brevets. Par conséquent, des 32

49 programmes permettant aux pays du tiers monde d'avoir un accès rapide au savoir-faire concernant les technologies liées à la protection de l'environnement ne devraient pas concerner la législation sur les brevets. Zusammenfassung Diese Frage betrifft Patente und Umweltschutz. Die dänische Landesgruppe Ist sich der Bedeutung des Umweltschutzes, der die Gesellschaft in ihrer Gesamtheit betrifft, bewusst. Nach Auffassung der dänischen Landesgruppe ist es zur Zeit jedoch nicht erforderlich, ein besonderes Patentsystem für Erfindungen einzuführen, die eine Verbesserung des Umweltschutzes betreffen. Die derzeitigen Bestimmungen des dänischen Patentgesetzes über Zwangslizenzen aufgrund eines wichtigen öffentlichen Interesses reichen aus, um eine angemessene Verbreitung der Umweltschutztechnologien zu sichern. Die dänische Landesgruppe zieht eine reine Patentgesetzgebung in dem Sinne vor, dass andere Gegenstande durch andere Gesetze als die Patentgesetzgebung geschützt werden sollten. Daher sollten Programme, die Ländern der Dritten Welt einen schnellen Zugang zum Know-how über Umweltschutztechnologien ermöglichen, von der Patentgesetzgebung nicht berührt werden. 33

50 Egypte Egypt Ägypten Rapport Q 128 par le Groupe égyptien Brevets et protection de l'environnement I. Etat de la réglementation nationale II n'existe pas actuellement en Egypte de conflits particuliers entre brevets et protection de l'environnement En janvier 1994, une nouvelle législation a été promulguée pour la protection de l'environnement. Quoique les règlements exécutifs de cette loi n'aient pas encore été annoncés jusqu'à maintenant, la loi est entrée en vigueur depuis sa parution dans le Journal Officiel en date du 5février1994. Toutefois, il n'y a pas de clause dans cette loi qui se rapporte aux brevets. D'autre part, la loi qui régit les Brevets en Egypte est encore l'ancienne législation de 1949 (Loi No. 132/1949). Celle-ci ne mentionne pas l'atteinte à l'environnement comme cause de réjection du Brevet. Elle mentionne uniquement l'atteinte aux Bonnes Moeurs et à l'ordre public. Aucun des amendements qui se sont ajoutés à cette législation initiale ne fait mention de la protection de l'environnement. Par contre, le nouveau Projet de Loi sur les Brevets et les Modèles d'utilité qui doit être incessamment présenté à l'assemblée du Peuple pour ratification mentionne clairement cela au Chapitre I, Article 2, Clause A. Chap. I Art. (2): Il ne sera pas délivré de brevet à toute invention: (A) dont l'exploitation pourrait porter atteinte aux Bonnes Moeurs et à I' ordre public ou pourrait nuire à la vie et à la santé des êtres humains, des animaux et des végétaux ou à l'environnement." Il n'y a pas de dispositions particulières pour les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement Non. 34

51 4. Le nouveau Projet de Loi sur les Brevets fait aussi provision de l'octroi d'une licence obligatoire 'dans le cas où l'invention brevetée intéresserait ou concernerait la Défense Nationale, la Santé Publique ou le Bien Public nonobstant toute exploitation commerciale'. (Chapitre IV, Article 26) Cette dernière clause, d'après nous, pourrait être applicable aux brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement. Il. Existe-t-ii un conf lit entre a brevetabilité d'une invention et la protection de l'environnement? A notre avis, il ne faut pas accorder de brevets à une invention néfaste à l'environnement car la brevetabilité crée une situation légale et peut être considérée de facto comme une consécration nationale officielle puisqu'émanant d'un organisme de l'etat. Ill. Les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement doivent-ils bénéficier d'un régime particulier? Il faudrait d'abord définir ce que l'on entend par brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement. Nous proposons la définition suivante: Toute invention ayant pour objet direct ou comme effet direct la protection de l'environnement ou la réduction des atteintes nuisibles à la nature ou à la santé des êtres vivants", Il faudrait également prévoir un régime particulier pour ces brevets. 1. Dispositions favorisant l'examen et la délivrance de tels brevets: Examen rapide (si possible) Taxes réduites ou supprimées totalement dans le cas des licences obligatoires par ex. Publication particulière Création d'une Agence Nationale pour aider le breveté à la commercialisation de son invention Prise en charge complète par la dite Agence Nationale de tous les frais à partir du dépôt du brevet et suite à la demande de l'inventeur lui-même. 2. Droits des tiers d'utiliser les brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement: (a) On pourrait accorder aux tiers, le droit d'utiliser des brevets couvrant des inventions relatives à la protection de l'environnement. Ce droit doit être consacré par une licence obligatoire si les parties n'aboutissent pas à un accord amiable. Le breveté ne devrait pas s'opposer à l'utilisation de sa technologie dans ce domaine sauf s'il se sent lésé dans les compensations matérielles octroyées par cette licence. Dans ce cas, il devrait avoir la possibilité d'un recours à l'arbitrage ou à la Justice. 35

52 L'existence d'une Agence Nationale pour favoriser les inventions relatives à la protection de l'environnement représenterait un médiateur de choix dans les négociations entre le breveté et les tiers désireux d'exploiter la technologie brevetée. (b) Dans la mesure où un savoir-faire pourrait être bénéfique non seulement à Un groupe ou à une région déterminée mais aussi à toute une nation, il faudrait aller jusqu'à obliger le titulaire d'un tel savoir-faire à le communiquer à des tiers en vue d'assurer l'exploitation efficace de l'invention. IV. Aspects internationaux de la question 1 (a) Comme les problèmes d'environnement dépassent aujourd'hui les frontières nationales, il faudrait en effet envisager des mesures internationales pour l'harmonisation des lois de brevets portant sur la protection de l'environnement, comme cela a été.prévu dans l'accord du GAlT (TRIPS). Il nous semble qu'il sera plus facile et plus rapide de convaincre les Etats Membres de la Convention de Paris, dont beaucoup d'ailleurs sont signataires de l'accord du GATT, de ratifier une clause concernant les brevets et la protection de l'environnement que d'attendre un consensus international sur le projet d'harmonisation du Droit des Brevets discute à l'ompi. Non, car de telles conférences exigent de grands préparatifs et font souvent l'objet de longues controverses. Oui, il faudrait prévoir un régime particulier pour les pays en voie de développement qui leur permettrait d'accéder plus rapidement au savoir-faire en matière de technologie relative à la protection de l'environnement L'institution d'une organisation internationale qui aurait des droits sur les Brevets (Patent Pool) et qui transféreraient ces droits à des tiers sous forme de licences est un projet de trop longue haleine pour un sujet qui est d'une brûlante actualité. Il serait préférable que l'ompi puisse créer (avec financement de la Banque Mondiale par ex.) un Bureau spécialise au sein de son organisation. On pourrait l'intituler (Patent Pool) ou (Patent and Protection of the Environment Office). Ce Bureau assumerait une double fonction recenser et commercialiser les brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement d'une part, et d'autre part permettre aux pays en voie de développement d'accéder au savoir-faire en matière de technologie relative à la protection de l'environnement. 36

53 A notre avis, une telle initiative est plus facile à réaliser et serait certainement très utile pour aider les pays du Tiers-Monde (dont l'egypte fait partie) à développer à l'instar des pays développés, des technologies de pointe moins nuisibles à l'environnement au lieu de demeurer le champ d'exploitation privilégié de technologies dépassées souvent néfastes à l'environnement. 37

54 Espagne Spain Spanien Rapport Q 128 par le Groupe espagnol Brevets et protection de l'environnement I. Etat de la réglementation nationale Existe-t-II dans le pays des problèmes particuliers posés aujourd'hui par la protection de l'environnement, par rapport aux droits de Propriété Industrielle? Les milieux concernés sont-ils sensibles à ce problème? Jusqu' à présent on n'a pas detecté en Espagne de problèmes particuliers en rapport avec la protection de l'environnement comme conséquence de l'existence de droits de Propriété Industrielle, tels que Brevets d'invention ou Modèles d'utilité. Existe-t-II des dispositions spécifiques concernant la question? La législation Espagnole en vigueur en matière de Brevets, basée sur la Loi 11/1986, ne prévoit pas de dispositions spécifiques concernant les brevets qui protègent des inventions directement en rapport avec l'environnement. Le nombre des brevets consacrés à la protection de l'environnement, est-ii actuellement en augmentation dans le pays? Au cours des dernières années on a constaté dans notre pays une importante progression du nombre des Brevets et des Modèles d'utilité déposés, destinés à protéger des inventions en rapport avec la protection de I' environnement, en particulier dans les secteurs technologiques de traitement des eaux, de la contamination atmosphérique et des dechets solides. Parmi ces secteurs sont particulièrement significatifs les progrés réalisés au cours des cinq dernières années, tendant à apporter une solution aux problèmes d'environnement concernant le traitement des marées noires et les émissions des automobiles, ainsi que, dans le secteur des dechets solides, les problèmes posés par le recyclage du papier et des matières plastiques. Existe-t-II des dispositions permettant de soumettre à une licence forcée un brevet concernant la protection de l'environnement, comme les licences forcées que certains pays 38

55 connaissent dans l'intérêt de la Défense Nationale, de la santé publique, ou encore de l'économie nationale? La législation en vigueur en matière de Brevet ne prévoit aucune disposition spécifique permettant la concession de licences non volontaires sur des Brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement. Il existe une disposition de caractère général, pour le cas ou interviendraient des motifs d'intérêt publique, étant entendu que ceux-ci existent quand le commencement, l'expansion ou la généralisation de l'exploitation de l'invention, ou l'amélioration des conditions dans lesquelles a lieu cette exploitation, sont d'importance primordiale pour la Santé Publique. Existe-t-il un Conflit entre la brevetabilité d'une invention, et la protection de Il. l'environnement? Ne faut-il pas là faire une distinction entre: - l'exploitation d'une invention qui peut se révéler néfaste et qui devrait donc être interdite; - et la brevetabilité d'une telle invention? La délivrance d'un brevet est-elle en eh-même de nature à porter atteinte à la protection de l'environnement? Le Groupe Espagnol est conscient de la gravité du problème et de la nécessité d'adopter dans les legislations nationales des mesures efficaces pour empêcher l'utilisation industrielle de technologies susceptibles de porter atteinte à l'environnement, mais considère que ces mesures ne devraient pas être adoptées dans le cadre de la Propriété Industrielle, en établissant des limitations à la brevetabilité, mais à un niveau plus général, en interdisant l'utilisation de technologie, brevetée ou non brevetée, conduisant à l'infraction des normes de protection de l'environnement. La protection de l'environnement par le biais des limitations de la brevetabilité ferait que, comme conséquence de ces limitations, ne pourraient bénéficier du système de Brevets ni des moyens de diffusion de la technologie inhérents à ce système, de nombreuses inventions qui, si elles avaient pu y accéder, auraient enrichi l'état de la technique par des connaissances susceptibles de futurs développements non nuisibles pour l'environnement ou de perfectionner l'invention en question pour permettre son application sans porter atteinte à l'environnement. D'autre part, il serait trés difficile d'établir des normes prohibitives susceptibles d'application pratique. Tenant compte du fait que l'environnement est défini comme "l'ensemble des conditions susceptibles d'agir sur les organes vivants et sur les activités humaines", il en découle que probablement la majorité des Brevets se réfèrent à des inventions qui, de façon plus ou moins directe ou plus ou moins intense, affectent l'environnement, dans un sens favorable 39

56 ou défavorable. Par conséquent, il serait trés difficile d'établir des limites de caractère général à partir desquelles une invention devrait être considérèe comme nuisible pour l'environnement. En tout cas, un Brevet ne confére pas au breveté le droit d'exploiter l'invention, mais le droit d'empêcher que des tiers l'exploitent sans son consentement. Le droit d'exploitation de l'invention peut être limité ou même refusé par application da normes étrangères à la Propriété Industrielle, indépendamment du fait que l'invention soit ou non brevetée. En fait il existe dans certains domaines, par exemple le domaine pharmaceutique, des contrôles qui peuvent conduire à l'impossibilité d'exploiter une invention brevetée. Ill. Les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement doivent-ils bénéficier d'un régime particulier? Il pourrait s'avérer utile de prévoir un régime spécial pour les brevets concernant des inventions destinées à la protection de l'environnement, mais à la condition de limiter son application à des domaines très concrets et très bien définis, car autrement le nombre de déposants prétendant bénéficier de ce régime particulier pourrait être très élevé. La liste des domaines bénéficiant de ce régime devrait être limitée à ceux où la protection de l'environnement serait réellement d'importance vitale. 1. Dispositions favorisant l'examen et la délivrance de tels brevets: Les brevets relatifs aux technologies de protection de l'environnement devraient-ils être examinés plus rapidement? Oui, ce serait conseillable afin que leur diffusion et mise en oeuvre puisse être plus rapide. Devraient-ils être soumis à des taxes réduites? Cela ne semble pas conseillable parce que la procédure de délivrance d'un brevet de ce genre entraînerait pour l'administration qui l'inscrit autant de travail et de coût que celle d'un brevet relatif a une autre matière et, même si le brevet est accordé, il n'existe aucune garantie que l'invention concernée Soit vraiment utile. Les aides économiques devraient être établies d'une autre façon. C) Devraient-ils faire I'ob/ect d'une publication particulière pour les porter rapidement et efficacement à la connaissance du public intéressé? Oui, il semble conseillable d'effectuer une diffusion toute particulière par exemple en publiant de ses résumés dans un Bulletin spécial. 40

57 d) Pourrait-on créer des agences nationales, qui suivraient attentivement la délivrance de tels brevets et se mettraient en contact avec les enterprises les plus susceptibles de mettre en ouvre ces techniques, de manière à favoriser la conclusion d'un accord avec le breveté? Des agences de ce genre seraient d'une grande utilité pour parvenir a une mise en oeuvre efficace de ces inventions. Ces agences ne devraient pas, cependant, intervenir dans la phase de délivrance des brevets, réservée uniquement aux Offices de Brevets nationaux, mais seulement dans la tâche de dissémination des brevets publiés. 2. Droits des tiers d'utiliser les brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement: Doit-on, en raison de l'importance de la protection de l'environnement, accorder aus tiers un droit d'utiliser les breves couvrant des inventions relatives à l'environnement? De nombreuses législations, comme la nôtre, ont déjà prévu la possibilité de soumettre à tout moment à un régime de licences obligatoires les brevets concernant des inventions d'intérêt public. Les inventions dönt l'exploitation serait réellement conseillable pour la protection de certains aspects vitaux de l'environnement pourraient être considérées, sans aucun doute, d'intérêt public et être soumises ainsi à un régime de licences obligatoires. Cependant, des mesures de ce genre devraient être appliquées avec modération. L'agence gouvernementale suggérée au point 1. (d) pour faciliter les négociations entre le titulaire et les tiers désireux d'exploiter la technologie brévetée, pourrait en même temps s'occuper de déterminer, avec prudence et selon des critères très restrictifs, quels brevets devraient être soumis au régime de licences obligatoires pour intérêt public, sans attendre le délai de trois ans à partir de la délivrance. Pour les autres brevets sur la protection de l'environnement, le régime général de licences obligatoires comme celui qui est prévu dans notre législation, serait suffisant. faudrait-ii aller jus qu'à obliger le titulaire d'un savoir-faire en la matière è le communiquer à des tiers pour assurer une exploitation efficace de l'invention? Le titulaire du brevet devrait apporter le savoir-faire en la matière, c'est-à-dire, ses connaissances pour que l'invention brévetée puisse être exploitée efficacement, quand il délivre une licence. Le problème surgit quand le titulaire du savoir-faire n'est titulaire d'aucun brevet. Dans ce cas, il ne nous semble pas possible de l'obliger à le communiquer à des tiers. 41

58 IV. Aspects internationaux de la question 1. Les problèmes d'environnement dépassent incontestablement le seul territoire national. a) Doit-on envisager une harmonisation des lois de brevet portant sur la protection de l'environnement? - une telle harmonisation pourrait-elle être envisagée dans le project d'harmonisation du Droit des Brevets discuté à l'ompi? En matière de brevetabilité, nous pensons que le contrôle des problèmes sociaux que pourraient poser certaines inventions technologiques, parmi lesquelles se trouveraient non seulement les inventions agressives pour l'environnement mais aussi beaucoup d'autres, n'est pas la mission des lois des brevets mais des réglementations d'une autre nature. Dans ce sens, nous pensons que la position adoptée en matière d'inventions biotechnologies (parmi lesquelles on en trouverait qui pourraient être nuisibles pour l'environnement) par le Projet de Directive de Protection Juridique des Inventions Biotechnologies de la Communauté Economique Européenne est raisonnable, puisqu'elle distingue clairement la réglementation des droits d'exclusivité sur ce genre particulier d'inventions objet fondamental de la directive- de la réglementation de l'exploitation de celles-ci -qui doit faire l'objet d'autres normes. Or, étant donné que les lois de brevets ne peuvent être totalement étrangères aux problèmes posés par l'exploitation de certaines inventions et que, en fait, elles comprennent des dispositions génériques interdisant la brevetabilité d'inventions anti-sociales -lesquelles, dans la loi espagnole, sont définies comme étant les inventions contraires à l'ordre public et aux bonnes moeursune harmonisation de ce genre de dispositions serait souhaitable de façon à ce qu'elles recueillent les préoccupations sociales internationalement partagées, parmi lesquelles se trouvent sans aucun doute la protection de l'environnement. Dans ce sens, des formules comme celles qui ont été utilisées dans le NAFTA: 'Les Membres pourront exclure de la brevetabilité les inventions dont l'exploitation commerciale sur leur territoire doit être empêchée nécessairement afin de protéger l'ordre public ou la moralité, même pour protéger la santé ou la vie des personnes ou des animaux ou pour préserver les plantes, ou pour éviter d'endommager gravement l'environnement, à condition que cette exclusion ne soit pas faite simplement parce que l'exploitation est interdite par la législation nationale", pourraient être un point de départ pour arriver à une solution acceptable. 42

59 doit-elle être prévue dans la Convention de Paris? Nous pensons qu'une harmonisation de ce genre se trouverait mieux située dans le Projet d'harmonisation du Droit de Brevets que dans la Convention de Paris. En matière d'aide à l'exploitation des inventions favorisant l'environnement, nous pensons qu'il serait très difficile de conclure des accords internationaux permettant l'harmonisation des dispositions des lois de brevets étant applicables à ce propos, comme par exemple, les dispositions relatives à une procédure accélérée de délivrance ou d'octroi de licences pour les inventions favorables à l'environnement. Nous pensons donc que dans le cadre des efforts pour parvenir à des accords internationaux sur l'environnement, des propositions d'harmonisation des lois de brevets ne seraient pas intéressantes. b) N'est-il pas préférable de prévoir une convention séparée du type de celle élaborée à la Conférence de Rio de 1992? Pour encourager la génération et application des technologies visant la protection de l'environnement, nous pensons que le cadre international approprié est, en effet, celui des conventions du genre de la Conférence de Rio de En fait, lors de la Conférence de Rio, des accords ont été conclus offrant, bien que partiellement, des voies visant la préservation de l'environnement, sans besoin de procéder à des modifications explicites des lois de brevets. C) Faut-II prévoir un régime particulier pour les pays en voie de développement, leur permettant d'accéder rapidement au savoir-faire en matière de technologie relative à la protection de l'environnement? Nous pensons en effet qu'il serait souhaitable de créer des mécanismes de transfert de technologie permettant aux pays en voie de développement d'accéder à la technologie environnementale. Dans ce sens, il est intéressant d'observer que l'art. 16 de l'accord de Biodiversité signé à la Conférence de Rio établit un système de transfert de technologie entre les membres signataires de l'accord et s'occupe de la problématique de la technologie brevetée dans les termes suivants (épigraphe 5): "Les parties contractantes, reconnaissant que les brevets et autres droits de propriété industrielle peuvent avoir de l'influence sur l'application du présent Accord, coopèreront à ce sujet conformément à la législation nationale et au droit international pour 43

60 veiller à ce que ces droits appuient les objectifs du présent Accord et n'y s'opposent pas L'application pratique de solutions comme celles qui sont prévues dans l'accord de Biodiversité, est certainement difficile mais au moins dans le cas espagnol- nous pensons que leur mise en oeuvre n'exige pas de modifications importantes des lois de brevets, car les dispositions espagnoles en matière de délivrance de licences permettraient le transfert de la technologie brevetée aux pays en voie de développement, en sauvegardant les intérêts légitimes des titulaires de brevets. d) Peut-on envisager l'institution d'une organisation internationale qui acquérerait des droits sur les brevets (Patent Pool) et qui transférerait à des tiers ces droits sous forme de licence? Nous pensons que oui. Lors des négociations de Nairobi sur l'accord de Biodiversité, la Commission Européenne a proposé qu'une partie des ressources financières apportées par les pays développés pour l'exécution de l'accord, soit destinée à l'acquisition de licences pour les pays en voie de développement, comme formule garantissant les objectifs prévus de transfert de technologie. Bien que cette proposition n'ait pas eu de succès, nous pensons que c'est un antécédent important dont il faudrait tenir compte. Parmi les organisations qui pourraient assumer la fonction indiquée, on peut citer la Banque Mondiale à travers le GEF (Global Environment Facility). Résumé De l'avis du groupe, le contrôle des inventions portant atteinte à l'environnement ne doit pas, en principe, se faire au moyen de limitations de leur brevetabilité, mais au moyen du contrôle de leur mise en oeuvre, grâce à des législations par secteurs. Toutefois, on pourrait envisager une harmonisation internationale des lois sur les brevets qui ferait que la clause générale de non-brevetabilité des inventions contraires à l'ordre public et aux bonnes moeurs porte également sur les inventions particulièrement nuisibles à l'environnement. Quant à la promotion des inventions protégeant l'environnement, ce groupe entend qu'à niveau national un régime spécial avantageant leur diffusion et leur mise en oeuvre pourrait s'avérer utile, bien que la Loi espagnole permette déjà, au moyen du système de licences obligatoires sur les inventions présentant un intérêt public, que leur utilisation soit favorisée. A niveau international, on estime qu'il conviendrait d'établir des mécanismes de coopération internationale pour le transfert de technologie vers des pays en voie de développement. 44

61 Summary In the Group's opinion, the control of inventions harmful to the environment should not, in principle, occur through limitations on their patentability, but by controlling their exploitation through legislation by sectors. Notwithstanding, thought could be given to an international harmonization of the patent laws, that would extend the general rule of the non-patentability of inventions contrary to public order and propriety to cover inventions particularly prejudicial to the environment. Respecting the encouragement of inventions protecting the environment, the Group considers that, at the national level, a special legislation could be useful to favour their diffusion and exploitation, although the Spanish law already permits their use being favoured, through the system of compulsory licences on inventions of public interest. At the international level, it is considered that it would be advisable to establish mechanisms for international cooperation for the transfer of technology to developing countries. Zusammenfassung In der Meinung der Gruppe sollte die Kontrolle von umweltschädigenden Erfindungen grundsätzlich nicht über Beschränkungen ihrer Patentfâhigkeit, sondern über die Kontrolle ihrer Ausübung durch sektoriale Gesetzgebungen erfolgen. Trotzdem könnte man an eine internationale Harmonisierung der Patentgesetze denken, die die allgemeine Klausel der Nichtpatentierbarkeit von gegen die öffentliche Ordnung und die guten Sitten verstoßenden Erfindungen auf Erfindungen erweitern, die besonders schädlich für die Umwelt sind. Bzgl. der Promotion von umweltschützenden Erfindungen vertritt die Gruppe den Standpunkt, daß auf nationaler Ebene ein besonderes System nützlich sein könnte, das ihre Bekanntmachung und Nutzung begünstigt, auch wenn das spanische Gesetz bereits über das System der Zwangslizenzen für Erfindungen von öffentlichem Interesse ihre Benutzung begünstigt. Auf internationaler Ebene wird die Meinung zum Ausdruck gebracht, daß es angebracht wäre, für die Technologieübertragung auf Entwicklungsländer internationale Kooperationsmechanismen einzuführen. 45

62 Etats-IJnis d'amérique United States of America Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika Report Q 128 in the name of the United States Group by Rene D. TEGTMEYER (Chair.), Edward G. FIORITO, William O. HENNESSEY, Donald K. HUBER, Leonard B. MACKEY, and David S. SAFRAN Patents and protection of the environment I. State of the national rules 1. The only significant issues or problems which havebeen raised in the United States in regard to the relationship between protection for the environment and industrial property rights are those which have arisen from the United Nations Rio Conference in 1992, and in particular certain provisions in the Convention on Biological Diversity and statements contained in the agenda for the 21st Century (Agenda 21) which resulted from this Conference.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity was opened for signature at a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro on June 5, The Convention was signed by the United States on June 4, lt was forwarded by the President to the Senate for advice and consent to its ratification on November 19, Hearings were held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 12, As of October, 1994, advice and consent to the ratification was still pending before the United States Senate. The Convention defines biological diversity in Article 2 as the: 'variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alla, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, beiween species and of ecosystems." The objectives of the Convention are conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of Its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies and by appropriate funding. These objectives are implemented in the Convention through specific provisions that address Identification and monitoring, in situ and ex situ conservation, sustainable use, research and training, public education and awareness, impact assessment, access to genetic resources, access and transfer of technology, technical and scientific cooperation, handling of biotechnology and distribution of Its benefits, and financing. The Convention establishes a Conference of the Parties ('COP') and a Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice to provide scientific and technical assessments of the status of bio-logical diversity. The Convention identifies the Global Environmental Facility ("GEF") of the World Bank as 46

63 - - The industrial property rights questions flowing from the Biological Diversity Convention arise principally in Articles 15 and 16 of the Convention.2 These Articles of the Convention have raised concerns in the private sector whether the Convention might be interpreted to require the disclosure of trade secrets and the compulsory licensing of patents belonging to the private sector.3 The United States Government positionis that the institutional structure to carry out the operation of financial mechanism until the first meeting of the COP designates a permanent institutional structure. The hearings conducted by the Untied States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 12, 1994 on Senate advice and consent to the U.S. ratification of the Convention specifically focused on issues Involving the relationship between intellectual property and the protection of the environment. Other Issues were also addressed. Also a Conference on "The Greening of Technology Transfer: Protection of the Environment and of Intellectual Property" was conducted by the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire on April 8-9, The conference was co-presented by The Center for International Environmental Law located in Washington, DC. Participants from government, the intellectual property profession (including Mrs. Joan Clark, Executive President of AIPPI, Mr. William Keefauver, President of the U.S. Group, Mr. Leonard Mackey, a Vice President of the U.S. Group and Mr. William O. Hennessey, a Professor and Organizer of the conference at Franklin Pierce Law Center and member of the U.S. Group Q 128 Committee), environmental groups, industry, academia, environmental law and other areas participated In the conference at which the relationship between intellectual property and protection of the environment well as other issues were discussed. 2 Article 15, paragraph 7 requires each Party to the Convention to take measures: with the aim of sharing in a fair and equitable way the results of research and development and the benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic resources with the Contracting Party providing such resources. Such sharing shall be upon mutually agreed terms. Article 16, obligates each Party: to provide and/or facilitate access for and transfer to other Contracting Parties of technologies that are relevant to the conseriation and sustainable use of genetic resources and do not cause significant damage to the environment... under fair and most favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms where mutually agreed,... (lin the case of technology subject to patents and other intellectual property rights, such access and transfer shall be provided on terms which recognize and are consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights Article 16, paragraph 5, further provides: The Contracting Parties, recognizing that patents and other intellectual property rights may have an In fluence on the implementation of this Convention, shall cooperate in this regard subject to national legislation and international law in order to ensure that such rights are supportive and do not run counter to its objectives. 3 In the hearings held by the Untied States Senate on April 12, 1994 on the question of Senate advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity, there was testimony presented which included the question of what obligations were imposed by the provisions relating to patents In the Convention. Testimony presented at these hearings included that of Timothy E. Wirth, Counsellor of the Department of State, Lisa Conte, President and CEO of Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Dr. Walter V. Reid, Vice President for Programs at the World Resources Institute, and Dr. Georg Albers-Schonberg on behalf of Merck & Co., Inc. 47

64 the Convention does not make requirements for involuntary disclosure of trade secrets or the compulsory licensing of patents.4 In the United States, the law provides for strong protection for both trade secrets and patented technology.5 The compulsory licensing of patents is generally considered as a disincentive to the disclosure of new technology and to the development of and investment in new technology. Accordingly, there is no general provision in United States law for the compulsory licensing of patents owned by the private sector except for use or manufacture by or for the United States government.6 2. There are no limits on the filing of applications for patent or the granting of patents on inventions which would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment. The philosophy of the United States patent system is that patents encourage the development, disclosure of and investment in new technology and that the granting of patents would help stimulate the development of inventions which have a favourable impact upon the environment. Any limitation on the patenting of technology beneficial to the environment would only discourage the development, disclosure and investment in such technology. With respect to the possibility that patents may be granted on inventions which may be harmful to the environment, the question of the granting of a patent and regulatory controls which restrict the use or commercialisation of products or processes which are harmful to the environment are dealt with separately in the law and are administered by different government agencies. Whether subject matter is harmful to the environment is not a criteria for the granting of a patent.7 Also, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to deal with such regulatory matters. The application of such criteria are best left to the regulatory agencies in the Government to evaluate when a product or process is appropriate for use or commercialisation. What might be harmful or not harmful to the environment to such a degree that it should not be utilized or marketed at one point in time may not be in such a category at another point in time. The grant of a patent in the United States as well as in other countries is not a license or government approval to market or commercialize the invention covered by the patent. 4 See the "Message from The President of the United States Transmitting The Convention On Biological Diversity, With Annexes, Done At Rio De Janiero June 5, 1992, And Signed By The United States In New York On June 4, 1993." Senate Treaty Doc , 1030 Congress, ist Session. 5 Note Kewanee Oil Co. y. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 40 LEd. 2d 315, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 181 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1974) with respect to the importance and role of trade secrets U.S.C lt would be inappropriate to attempt to define criteria for patenting which incorporates standards which may continually be subject to change as information and technology change. Further there are varying degrees of harmfulness to the environment and varying degrees of benefit from different products and processes which must be weighed and balanced with each other in determining whether they should be permitted to be marketed. 48

65 lt is merely a right to exclude others from marketing or commercializing the subject matter covered by the patent. There are some very limited compulsory licenseprovisions in certain laws related to the environment. These compulsory licensing provisions are an anomaly in U.S. law. The Clean Air Act in 42 U.S.C contains such a provision as does the Atomic Energy Act at 42 U.S.C (g) and 42 U.S.C. 2297c-4. These provisions are quite limited. The compulsory licensing provision in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7608, is very narrow and applies only where the patent in question is not otherwise reasonably available for licensing and is necessary to enable a person to comply with a requirement of the Clean Air Act. Additionally under 7608, it must be shown that there are no reasonable alternative methods to accomplish the purpose" and that 'the unavailability of the right will lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in a line of business." Thus the provision is quite limited.8 The provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in 42 U.S.C and 2297c-4 are broader but are limited to a very narrow area, that is, the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy. Under 2183, it must be shown that the use of the invention or discovery 'is of primary importance" for a compulsory license to be appropriate. Consideration has been given to similar provisions in a number of other laws relating to protection of the environment but such provisions have not been adopted. The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended,9 is designed to promote the transfer of technology in a variety of fields, including in the environmental area, from government and government sponsored research to the private sector. The rules of practice in the Patent and Trademark Office permit patent applications related to enhancing the environment to be taken up out of turn and examined more quickly since the early grant of a patent in some cases may speed the availability of the technology to enhance the environment There are no specific statistics available on the number of patents granted each year which are involved with environmental protection. Definitions of subject matter which relates to environmental protection can vary quite widely, either being very broad or very narrow. However, the total number of patents being granted is increasing each 8 It appears that the compulsory licensing provision in 2608 of the Clean Air Act (title 42 U.S.C.) has never been used. Note, for instance, the statement of Michael Gollin of Keck, Mahin & Cate in Washington, D.C. at the Franklin Pierce Law Center Conference on April 8-9, 1994 that "[ijt is my understanding that provision in the Clean Air Act has never been applied and that there are many people who would just as soon that nobody knew about." (A record of the Conference is presently in the process of preparation for publication.) 9 15U.S.C.3701 et seq. 10 See 37 C.F.R and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (M.P.E.P.) V. The M.P.E.P. is maintained by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and published by the U.S. government. 49

66 year in the United States and undoubtedly the number of patents involved with environmental protection is increasing as well There are very limited provisions in United States law which provide for a compulsory license on a patent related to environmental protection. These were referenced above and include the Clean Air Act and the Atomic Energy Act. As indicated, these provisions are limited and proposals for similar provisions in other laws have been uniformly turned down.12 Compulsory licenses, as well as the rendering of a patent unenforceable, are judicial remedies which have been applied for violations of the Antitrust laws and for patent misuse)3 However, 271(d)14 of the patent law was amended in 1988 to provide that a patent owner shall not be denied relief for deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of patent rights by reason of his having refused to license or use any rights to the patent. Thus, mere refusal to license others to practice the invention is not a misuse or illegal extension of a patent which would result in the granting of a compulsory license or other remedy. There have been extreme and rare situations in the pastin which the courts have applied a compulsory license to avoid a major public health problem)5 11 Statistics relating to patents in the environmental area can be generated from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data bases by defining the areas of interest in the U.S. or International Patent Classification systems and computer identifying the numbers of patents issuing in these classifications each year. Such patents can also be identified to some extent by using full text searching of the text of U.S. patents. There are statistics available from the Office of Petitions in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Patents in the U.S. Patent andîrademark Office on the number of petitions filed ta have patent applications made special on the basis that they enhance the environment. Statistics obtained from Mr. Jeffrey V. Nase, Director of the Office of Petitions, indicate a relatively low level of interest in having applications made special on the basis that the invention is beneficial to the environment. The statistics also indicate, however, a large increase in the number of such petitions between 1985 when there were three such petltians and 1991, the peak year, when there were 129 filed. In 1993, there were 107 filed. With alikely switch to a 20 year patent term from filing date in the United States, the number of such petitions may Increase some. 12 Such provisions have been regarded in most circles as counter-productiveto the development of new technology to address environmental as well as health and other problems. Patent protection stimulates the development of, publication of, and investment in new technology. Compulsory licensing substantially reduces the value of the patent protection and thus diminishes the incentives to the development of that technology. 13 See for instance, United States y. Glaxo Group, Ltd., 410 U.S. 52, 176U.S.P.Q. 289 (1973); InternatIonal Salt Co. y. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 75U.S.P (1947); Hartford-Empire Co. y. United States, 323 U.S. 386,64 U.S.P.Q. 18 (1945) U.S.C. 271(d). The amendment of 271 of the patent law to specifically indicate that a patent owner is free to refuse to license others essentially codifies and clarifies eailier decisions of the Supreme Court. See for example, Continental Paper Bag, Co. y. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S (1908). 15 Cf. City of Milwaukee y. Activated Sludge, 69 F.2d 577, 21 U.S.P.O. 69(7th Cir. 1934), 81 F.2d 22, 28 U.S.P (7th Cir. 1936) and Vitamin Technologists y. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 146 F.2d 941,63 U.S.P.O. 262 (9th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 876(1945). 50

67 While there is no general provision in U.S. law for the granting of compulsory licenses which would permit other members of the public to practice an invention covered by a patent, the federal government for governmental purposes may practice the invention covered by a patent without being enjoined from the practicing of the invention under 283 of the patent law. Section 283 provides for the granting of injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by a patent. The U.S. government has sovereign immunity and patents granted by the government to private parties are subject to eminent domain. However the United States government has by law waived its immunity with respect to patents and subjected itself to patent infringement suits in the Claims Court where the patent owner can obtain a remedy for infringement by the government in the form of reasonable and entire compensation for use and manufacture by the United States government.16 However, no injunctive relief can be obtained. State and local governments are not immune under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from a suit for patent infringement and from injunctive relief. Since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 19go held states immune from suit for patent infringement by reason of the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, was added to the patent law in Section 296 by waiver of the application of the 11th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that states are not immune from suit under the patent law. Similarly Foreign States are not subject to immunity in an action under the United States patent law.19 Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an inventionand protection of the environment? No, there is no conflict between the patenting of inventions and protection of the environment. These two programs are not inconsistent. The patenting of inventions supports the protection of the environment. It is correct that the NAFTA Treaty and the GATI/TRIPs Agreement expressly address the question of the patentability of an invention in relation to protection of the environment. Both NAFTA Article 1709(7) and GATT/TRIPs Article 27(2) permit but do not require Member countries to exclude from patentability inventions 'to avoid serious prejudice to nature or the environment" or "to avoid serious prejudice to the environment." However, it should be noted that these provisions in the NAFTA and GATT/TRIPs agreements are very narrow being limited to inventions which would cause "serious prejudice to the environment". The U.S.C Chew y. State of California, 893 F.2d 331, 13 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1393 (Fed. Cir. 1990) U.S.C. 296, added to the patent law October 28, 1992 by P.L , 2(a)(2), 106 Stat Note that the same kind of amendment was made to the Plant Variety Protection Act at 7 U.S.C u.s.c.133o. 51

68 provisions were not adopted to encourage or require countries to prohibit the patenting of subject matter which might seriously prejudice nature or the environment, but rather to enlarge the subject matter which countries are required to protect by patents. In the U.S. view, the exceptions spelled out were political compromises and did not set a GAIT policy supporting the exclusion of subject matter deemed harmful to the environment from patenting. With respect to the question whether a distinction should be made between the exploitation of an invention which may be found harmful to the environment and therefore would have to be prohibited and the patentability of such an invention, the U.S. Group believes that such a distinction should be made. The question whether a patent should be granted on an invention should be determined by such criteria as whether the invention is adequately disclosed, and is novel and unobvious or involves inventive step. Whether or not the subject matter is or might cause harm to the environment is not an appropriate criterion to apply in determining whether a patent should issue. The question whether a product may be used or marketed and whether a process may be used where the product or process may be harmful to the environment is a question which should be determined by the appropriate regulatory agencies within each country. What may be harmful to the environment to a degree which requires a product or process to be prohibited from use or marketing may vary at different times.20 Also, an invention may have significant benefits. The harm caused to the environment must be weighed against the benefits of the product or process in determining whether it should be prohibited. Making these evaluations is a function best performed by the appropriate regulatory agency charged with protecting the public and the environment not the patent office in different countries. The patent office does not have the necessary regulatory experience and knowledge and is not otherwise equipped to make such determinations. The inventor or owner of the invention should not be deprived of the benefits of the patent system because at some point in time the product or process involved may be harmful to the environment. Sufficient harm to the environment is suitable reason for prohibiting the marketing of the product or process, but not its patenting. As indicated above, a patent does not give the patent owner a right to market a product or process covered by the patent, but merely the right to exclude others from marketing the product or process.2' 20 At different points in time a product or process may in one instance be such that it should be prohibited and in another instance be such that it should not be prohibited. Technological developments may permit a once prohibited process or product to be treated or modified in a way that lt Is no longer necessary that it be prohibited. Similaily a product or process may be found suitable for marketing and use may later be found to be more harmful than originally determined, such that it should be prohibited from marketing or use. lt would not be appropriate to prohibit the patenting of an invention in a product or process based on its harm to the environment when future technological developments may render that product or process harmless or sufficiently harmless that it is suitable for marketing. 21 The granting of a patent on an invention harmful to the environment may even be helpful to the environment because the underlying technology is made public and increases the knowledge base. It may even encourage further development of alternatives or Improvements which limit or eliminate the harm caused to the environment. 52

69 The grant of a patent in and of itself is not of such a nature as to affect environmental protection. The grant of a patent has nothing to do with whether or not a product or process is used and marketed in such a way as to affect the environment. In conclusion, there is no inherent conflict between the grant of patents and protection of the environment.22 In fact, the grant of patents encourages the development of technology which is environment friendly and which increases the knowledge bank in which solutions to environmental problems can be found. Further, there is nothing inconsistent with the granting of a patent on technology which can be excluded from marketing and use because of its harm to the environment. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? We agree that what is meant by patents relating to environmental protection should be defined. However, the definition of patents relating to the environment should vary with the use to which the definition is put and should be derived from the purpose for which it is being developed. We do not agree that the importance of environmental protection requires or makes it desirable to provide a particular system for patents relating to inventions which enhance environmental protection. Inventions which enhance environmental protection should be treated the same as other inventions and protected in the same way, using the same criteria and standards as for other inventions. The purpose of the patent system is to encourage invention, the disclosure of inventions, and the development and investment in the marketing or commercialisation of new technology. This purpose serves inventions which enhance environmental protection in the same way as it serves the development of other technologies.23 A separate system to protect inventions which enhance the environment should be established only if there is compelling evidence of a need for a particular system of protection. We are aware of no such need. Further, as a practical matter, it would be difficult to draw a line and define what inventions relate to enhancing environmental protection and what inventions do not and therefore 22 This seemed to be the view of most of those who participated in the discussions which took place at the Franklin Pierce Law Center conference on April 8-9, 1994 as noted by members of the Q 128 CommIttee of IIPA present at the Franklin Pierce conference. See Footnote lt is not clear how a system different from that which protects other technology, such as one which provides protection which is easier or more difficult to get, provides greater or longer protection, or less and shorter protection, or the like, would enhance environmental protection any better than the existing patent system in the United States. Much of the technology which enhances the environment has other purposes and applications in many different fields. lt would be clearly harmful to the development of new technology to enhance environmental protection to provide any lesser degree of protection for inventions which enhance the environment. 53

70 should or should not be the subject of a different (particular) patent system. A broad definition would encompass a large portion of the subject matter on which patents are granted presently and would encompass inventions only remotely affecting the environment. lt would be difficult to look at questions relating to the degree to which patents enhance environmental protection. Therefore, there would be practical difficulties with creating a particular system for patents relating toinventions which enhance environmental protection. 1. a) Yes, it is desirable that applications for patents relating to environmental protection technologies be examined by patent offices more quickly where the invention involved would enhance the quality of the environment and where quicker protection is needed. United States practice presently provides for requests to examine patent applications more quickly where they involve subject matter which materially enhances the quality of the environment.24 However quicker examination may not be beneficial in every case, such as where the inventor has no plans or market for marketing the technology or licensing the technology initially, or where the technology is not likely to be put into commercial use by any party in the near future. Therefore, quicker examination of patents should only be undertaken if requested by the applicant. Further, examining every patent application relating to the environment with a broad definition of enhancing the environment would be very difficult to accomplish in most patent offices and would sacrifice the degree to which such applications can be examined more quickly because of the large numbers involved. b) No, patent applications which relate to enhancing environmental protection should not enjoy reduced fees. Fees in a particular technology should only be reduced where there is evidence that this would significantly stimulate development and would not slow the development of other technologies. There is no evidence that reduced fees in the environmental area as compared to other fields, would be more likely to stimulate the development of new technology.25 Applicants who are creating and contributing new technology should not be asked to pay increased filing fees to permit applicants for inventions relating to environmental protection technologies to enjoy reduced fees. If fees were to be reduced in this area in contrast to others, it should be the public generally which pays for any reduced fees by such applicants if reduced fees are beneficial. Further, governmental fees even where they are very high are only a portion of the costs involved in the protection and development of an invention and the impact of a reduction in these fees would be small C.F.R (c); M.P.E.P V. 25 Further, if the fees are reduced very much in many cases, the burden on other applicants who may have to make up for these reduced fees by increased fees may be so great as to discourage filings on other Inventions and would be an unfair burden on such other applicants. 54

71 C) The question whether patents relating to environmental protection should be the subject of a particular publication so that they are quickly and effectively brought the to the interested public is a matter which requires more study and information. There are existing services and indexes which permit parties interested in obtaining information about new patented technology to readily access patents for this purpose. lt is not clear whether existing commercial and governmental services and indexes and publications do not already satisfy any special needs in the environmental area or any special needs in developing countries. There may be a need for getting information out to all of the interested parties throughout the world as to what information and services are available and how to identify and locate patented technology that may be beneficial to solving particular environmental problems or which provides a source of up-to-date information relating to a particular environmental area. The availability of full text search services, Official Gazettes, patent classification systems, etc. which permit access to needed technology may be unknown to many researchers and problem solves in environmental areas. To the extent that such information is not now readily available, it is desirable that mechanisms be put in place which will facilitate this task. Preferably such mechanisms should be oriented to private enterprise. To the extent that this may not be sufficient, additional governmental or international mechanisms might be created. The Biological Diversity Convention itself has provisions which broadly address these questions.26 Early publication of patents is desirable for prompt dissemination of technology in all areas including environmental areas though there are other reasons to be concerned with early publication, principally to avoid discouraging the filing of patent applications. Most countries already provide for early publication of patented technology, usually 18 months after the filing or priority date of a patent application. The United States is presently headed toward becoming an early publication country. Also, providing a grace period where a patent applicant's own publication within one year before filing would not bar the grant of a patent would encourage early publication. d) With respect to the establishment of national agencies to follow the granting of patents and to contact undertakings most likely to utilize new technology when patents of interest issue, it is possible that commercial services now available and government programs presently underway sufficiently provide the needed services at least in developing countries. lt seems desirable that this be studied and, to the extent that such services are not now available, that efforts be under- 26 For instance, Article 17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity provides for the exchange of publicly available information. Article 18 provides for Technical and Scientific cooperation. 55

72 taken to provide them. Again, The Biological Diversity Convention contains the mechanisms necessary for this purpose.27 World-wide access to data bases through "Internet', the coming of the information highway," satellite communications, and the proliferation of computers and data bases offer great opportunities to enhance information and technology transfer. These kinds of facilities should be tied into the implementation of the Biological Diversity Convention. 2. a/b) No. Third parties should not be given a right to use inventions relating to the environment when they are covered by patents or the subject of trade secrets and know-how owned by private parties. This would unduly erode the value of the patent grant and discourage the development, investment in, and publication and commercialisation of new technology. In the long run such action would be counterproductive to the development of new technology to protect the environment. lt is also unnecessary. Patent owners with rare exception will either license their patent on fair and reasonable terms or develop the technology themselves so long as a business friendly infrastructure is present in the country in question. With a favourable business climate including strong intellectual property protection and enforcement, technology will be accessible. A compulsory licensing provision should not be provided for where parties cannot arrive at an amicable licensing agreement. As indicated above, this would be counterproductive. In extreme circumstances, such licenses might be permitted by an appropriate procedure. However, these should be extreme in nature and very rare. A patent owner should be able to resist use of his patented technology in the field involved generally. The establishment of an agency to facilitate negotiations between a patentee and third parties if the principle of a compulsory license is not considered to be necessary and is not accepted. A party represented by competent counsel and technical advisors should be in a position to negotiate a license agreement on fair and equitable terms in general. Such negotiations should be left to private parties and to free market factors rather than government or quasi government agencies which are likely not familiar with the market considerations, the value of the invention, the technology involved and other considerations involved in the licensing negotiations. 27 Id. Note also that, in the united States, the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 was passed by the Congress for the purposes of fostering the dissemination of informaticn and transfer of technology developed by or for the government to those in the private sector and the public sector. The Act has been further amended by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Actof 1989 as well as other amending acts. 56

73 The Biological Diversity Convention contains provisions for financial assistance, research and training programs, access to and transfer of technology, exchanges of information and technical and scientific cooperation.28 With the utilization of a financial implementing body, especially the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) of the World Bank, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), there appear to be sufficient mechanisms and expertise under the Convention on Biological Diversity if necessary to provide access to counsel and technical assistance in developing countries which may not have the necessary infrastructure to support private negotiations without help. The owner of know-how as well as patents should not be obliged to communicate it to third parties to ensure effective exploitation of an invention. Third parties should not be granted a right to use inventions relating to the environment by compulsory license of know-how for the reasons indicated earlier in this report in respect to patents. Further, know-how should not be required to be communicated to a third party licensee, even in conjunction with the license of a patent. The questions of acquiring know-how should be left to the negotiations between the parties which should result in a fair and equitable licensing arrangement for the know-how as long as both parties are represented by experienced and competent negotiators and have the necessary technical advice. The Convention on Biological Diversity does not require or even encourage the imposition of compulsory licensing for either patents or know-how.29 Further, the Agenda 21, Chapter 34 Statement adopted by the Plenary in Rio de Janiero on June 14, also does not support or encourage compulsory licensing of patents or know-how Articles 20 and 21 cover financial resources. Article 12 covers research and training. Article 16 provides for access to and transfer of technology. Article 17 provides for the exchange of information and Article 18 provides for technical and scientific cooperation. 29 Some assert that the Convention on Biodiversity requires or at least encourages compulsory licensing of patents affecting the protection of the environment. These assertions rely principally on Articles 15 and 16 of theconvention. However, these articles nowhere mention compulsory licensing or anything akin to compulsory licensing. Articles 15 and 16 provide for access to and transfer of the results of research and development of technology, but only on 'mutually agreed terms,' [Article 15(7)1 "where mutually agreed,"[article 16(2)] and in the case of "technology subject to patents and other intellectual property rights,... on terms which recognize and are consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights" larticle 16(2)] and again 'on mutually agreed terms." larticle 16(3)J The Convention is intended to be compatible with patent and other intellectual property rights and leave private parties to mutually agree on the terms foraccess and transfer of technology. The President's Message forwarding the Convention to the United States Senate analyzes Articles 15 and 16 and slmilarty concludes that "... the Convention does not provide a basis for the use of compulsory licensing laws to compel private companies to transfer technology." 30 Chapter 34 is titled, "Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology. Cooperation and Capacity Building". 31 Note particularly Chapter 34, paragraphs and which require that In granting access to and transferring technology to developing countries, consideration must be given to the role of patent protection and intellectual property rights and to access and transfer "on mutually agreeable terms." 57

74 The United States Group does not support the invocation of compulsory licensing even to the extent permitted by the GATI/TRIPs Agreement and NAFTA. The provisions in these Agreements permitting limited compulsory licenses were a political compromise.32 Compulsory licenses significantly diminish the value of the patent and should not be used except in the most extreme and rare fact circumstances. With rare exception, the technology will be developed by the patent owner in countries interested in the technology licenses will be available and can be negotiated with appropriate experienced and competent counsel and technical assistance on fair and equitable terms to all the parties, if the political, business and intellectual property protection infrastructure in the country is supportive. A patentee should, accordingly, be able to resist use of the patented technology in the field involved. Some would argue that the mere existence of a patent may block or discourage others from doing research or development work in an area of technology. However, where the technology is needed, it is likely to be valuable and others encouraged to find alternatives to get around a patent. In the rare situation where the cost of urgently needed research and development is too highand the risk too great to stimulate private research, government funding or other incentives can be provided to help stimulate research. In conclusion, the establishment of an governmental agency to facilitate negotiations between a patentee and third parties who wish to exploit the patented technology and know-how is not necessary. The mechanisms established by the Convention on Biological Diversity should provide any indirect assistance that some developing countries may need such as access to basic technological expertise. IV. International aspects of the question: 1. a/b) There is no reason to harmonize patent laws relating to environmental protection separate from general harmonization activities. The patent laws relating to environmental protection should be the same as they are for other subject matter as indicated earlier in this report. Harmonization should be focused on assuring that strong patent protection is provided for all subject matter. Technology which is deemed harmful to the environment should be controlled by other laws 32 Compulsory licensing is permitted by Article 31 of the GATTTTRIPs Agreement in circumstances where the proposed user has made efforts to obtain rights from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time. Further the terms and conditions of a compulsory license are very limiting under Article 31. For Instance, such licenses must be non-exclusive, primarily to supply the domestic market, with adequate renumeration, and subject to termination when the circumstances leading to the license cease to exist. Article 1709, paragraph 10, of the NAFTA agreement is very similar to the GATT/TAIP5 provision. 58

75 not the patent laws. Control should be exercised by regulatory laws taking into account public health, safety and environmental concerns and not through the patent laws. As indicated above, the patent laws and regulatory laws dealing with marketing or use of technology, have different concerns and purposes and should be administered separately from each other. There does not appear to be any need for any separate or additional Convention of the type drawn up at the Rio Conference in 1992 to deal with patent or in» tellectual property issues. The Biological Diversity Convention already provides mechanisms for financial assistance, technology transfer and cooperation in environmental matters. The United States Group supports a rational application of the program and cooperation provided for in the Biological Diversity Convention. Further harmonization should be directed at strengthening intellectual property laws in all countries and eliminating compulsory licensing provisions where they exist. Technology should be acquired by purchasing or licensing the technology for enhancing the environment and by creating a favourable infrastructure for the protection and exploitation of new technology beneficial to the environment. Present harmonization efforts to strengthen intellectual property protection, including grace period and rarty publication provisions, in WIPO and in new GAlT initiatives, are sufficient. No need is seen for a modificationof the Paris Convention or any separate new international intellectual property convention focussing on the protection of the environment. The cooperation and information exchange provisions in the Biological Diversity Convention are desirable and will further the exchange of information about desirable private technology which can then be purchased or licensed in the normal manner. 1. c) lt may be desirable to study the possibilities of creating new information banks or encouraging commercial services to create new information banks regarding available technology which would enhance or protect the environment. The implementing bodies and mechanisms for the Biological Diversity Treaty should be suitable for investigating whether there is such a need. In general, this should be accomplished through private commercial services if possible. To the extent that private commercial services cannot provide certain kinds of services or are not willing to go into marketing such services, it may be appropriate for some existing international organization to provide such a service. Intergovernmental cooperation and exchanges of scientists and engineers technically qualified in environmental matters to identify environmental problems, perform environmental studies, and to identify the needed technologies to enhance and protect the environment are desirable, if rationally administered, and are provided for in the Biological Diversity Convention. 59

76 1. d) No need is seen for any new international organization to acquire rights in respect of patents (Patent Pool) to transfer rights to patents (or know' how) in the pool in the form of licenses. lt is expected that important and valuable technology owned by private parties would not be turned over to an international organization for licensing. However, there may be a need for a world wide information clearing-house for accumulating information on patents and technology available for license and disseminating such information in usable form where it is needed and this should be studied. Such a study should consider first the use of existing facilities which could performsuch a function without creating a new international bureaucracy. Government owned technology can be transferred to developing and other countries under the provisions of the Biodiversity Convention. How this can be most effectively accomplished should be addressed on a rational basis by the implementing bodies for the Convention. Summary The American Group Report on Question Q 128 responds to the specific questions and issues set out in the 1994 Annuaire. The Report takes the position that strong patent protection is not in conflict with the protection of the environment. More specifically, the Report takes the position that the compulsory licensing of patents and mandatory access to privately owned know-how is contrary to the protection of the environment and should not be adopted. The U.S. Group supports the transfer of technology through voluntary negotiations instead. lt takes the position that the Convention on Biological Diversity is fully compatible with the U.S. position. The Report further takes the position that the patent system should not be the mechanism used to prohibit the marketing of products harmful to the environment. This function is best performed by the appropriate regulatory authorities. The U.S. Group also sees no need for special provisions in national patent laws or international patent conventions for patents relating to the protection of the environment. Finally, the Report supports the Convention on Biological Diversity as it relates to encouraging and facilitating access to, and the transfer of, technology on the environment through voluntary negotiations and facilitating access to technology in the public domain. Résumé Le Rapport du Groupe américain sur la Question Q 128 répond aux questions et points spécifiques qui sont présentés dans l'annuaire de Le Rapport prend la position qu'une forte protection des brevets n'est pas en conflit avec la protection de l'environnement. Plus particulièrement, le Rapport prend la position qu'une licence obligatoire des brevets et l'accès mandataire au savoir-faire qui appartient aux particuliers sont contraires à la protection de l'environnement et ne devraient pas être adoptés. Comme 60

77 alternatif, le Groupe américain soutient le transfert de la technologie par le moyen des négociations volontaires. Il prend la position que la Convention sur la diversité biologique est tout à fait compatible avec la position américaine. De plus, le Rapport prend la position que le système des brevets ne devrait pas être le mécanisme utilisé pour empêcher la vente des produits nuisibles à l'environnement. Cette fonction serait mieux accomplie par les autorités régulatrices appropriées. D'autre part, le Groupe américain estime qu'il n'y a pas besoin de provisions spéciales dans les lois nationales ou les conventions internationales sur les brevets relatives aux brevets ayant trait à la protection de l'environnement. Enfin, le Rapport soutient la Convention sur la diversité biologique en ce qui concerne l'encouragement, la simplification de l'accès et le transfert de la technologie relative à l'environnement par des négociations volontaires ainsi que de faciliter l'accès à la technologie dans le domaine public. Zusammenfassung Der Amerikanische Gruppen Bericht über Frage Q 128 beantwortet spezifische Fragen und Streitfragen die im 1994 Annuaire dargestellt sind. Der Bericht vertritt den Standpunkt, dass starke Patentrechte nicht mit dem Schutz der Umwelt in Konflikt stehen. Ins besondere, vertritt der Bericht den Standpunkt, dass Zwangslizenzen von Patenten und obligatorischer Zugang zu Know-how im Privatbesitz dem Schutz der Umwelt entgegengesetzt sind und nicht adoptiert werden sollten. Die U.S. Gruppe unterstützt stattdessen die Ubergebung von Technologie durch freiwillige Verhandlungen. Der Bericht vertritt den Standpunkt, dass das Abkommen für biologische Verschiedenheit mit der U.S. Stellung völlig verträglich ist. Der Bericht nimmt weiterhin die Stellung dass das Patentsystem nicht der Mechanismus sein soll, der benutzt wird um Marketing von Umweitschädliche Produkte zu verhindern. Diese Funktion ist am besten bei den passenden Regelungsbehörden verrichtet. Die U.S. Gruppe sieht auch kein Bedürfnis für besondere Vorschriften in Nationale Patentgesetzte oder Internationale Patentabkommen für Umweltschutzpatente. Zuletzt unterstüzt der Bericht das Abkommen für biologische Verschiedenheit im Zusammenhang mit der Förderung und Erleichterung vom Zugang zur, und die Übergebung von Umweltstechnologie durch freiwillige Verhandlungen und der Erleichterung vom Zugang zur öffentlichen Technologie. 61

78 Finlande Finland Finnland Report in the name of the Finnish Group by Marja-Leena MANSALA, Keijo HEINONEN, Pia HJELT, Timo S. KYLLIAINEN, Hely LOMMI, Eija ORPANA, llkka RAHNASTO Patents and protection of the environment I. State of the national rules So far there have not been any particular problems in Finland raised by protection of the environment, in relation to industrial property rights. There are no specific provisions in Finland - to limit filing of applications for patents which might affect the environment - for patents concerning protection of the environment. According to Section 1 of the Finnish Patent Law, patents shall not, however, be granted for inventions the exploitation of which would be contrary to morality or public order. Current patent applications are very often claimed to be environmentally oriented. Even inventions relating not merely to the protection of the environment are very often described as environmentally friendly. The patentability criteria for inventions do not involve an evaluation of the total eco- or energy balance of the life cycle or the economic aspects of inventions. Therefore it is difficult to give exact figures of the growth in recent years in the number of patent applications relating to environmental protection. The following list refers, however, to the fields where the patent activity in solving environmental problems is most prominent in Finland. gathering and removal of domestic refuse etc. composting and fermentation of household wastes elimination of pollutants in drinking water ground foundation measures for protecting the soil or the subsoil water prevention of oil pollution 62

79 combustion apparatus and processes incinerators and incineration purification of waste gases (engine exhaust gases, flue gases etc.) use of solar heat wind motors renewable raw materials, biodegradable packaging elements etc. production of cellulose, paper production (new pulp bleaching processes, use of enzyme technology, development of closed water systems) biological pesticides biochemicals against rotting fungi in forestry microbes degrading organic chemicals to clean contaminated soil and water, bioremediation processes bioluminescence and genetic engineering used in analysis of residues, in environmental monitoring etc. 4. The Finnish Patent Law, Chapter 6, gives the provisions for conditions on which compulsory licenses can be granted by courts of law. The provision according to which a compulsory licence may be obtained in the case of considerable public interest' could well be applied also to patents concerning environmental protection. Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? No. Although the NAFTA Treaty and the TRIPS Agreement entitle a state to exclude inventions from being patentable if exploitation thereof could damage the environment, such exclusions should not be inserted in patent laws. A distinction should clearly be made between a potentially harmful invention per se and the patentability thereof. The grant of a patent itself does not as such affect environmental protection and the general rule of prohibiting patents for inventions the exploitation of which would be contrary to morality or public order is sufficient to prevent the grant of any unwanted patents. Although it is true that patenting may give an incentive for a technical development which may result in harm to the environment, the stress should be put on the implementation of solutions which might control the exploitation of inventions harmful to the environment. The same concerns provisions regarding the use of new pharmaceutical products and the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? The Finnish Group has found it quite difficult to define 'patents relating to environmental protection. The entire question of the environmental impacts of patents is complex and 63

80 raises various problems. lt is generally recognized in Finland that most human activities have some kind of impact on the environment. Therefore, the question is most of all about finding technologies with less harmful impacts on the environment than the previous ones have. The Finnish Group has also found it in most cases impossible to find objective criteria to assess the environmental impacts of a technical solution at the time the application for a patent is filed. In some cases certain environmental impacts may only be assessed after several years of exploitation of the invention. Certain technologies may have both favourable and harmful impacts on the environment. It is evident that patents whose very object is directly to provide environmental protection could be defined as 'patents relating to environmental protection". There are, however, a number of other inventions, which may e.g. reduce the need of energy or raw materials. These inventions sometimes do not primarily have the purpose of environmental protection, but merely the purpose of meeting other needs in the field. The Finnish Group is of the opinion that environmental issues are not a problem for the patent system as such. As environmental issues are usually connected with all kinds of human activities, they also have an impact on the use of patentable inventions. The Finnish group would welcome a discussion on the possibilities for creating some kind of new additional system promoting the use of inventions which have a detectable favourable impact on environmental protection. Even though the patent system as such improves technical development, it is hardly possible to use the present system to benefit the actual use of certain patented technologies, such as those related to environmental protection. The above mentioned provisions in the Finnish Patent Law for compulsory licences (see point 1.4) may well be used to discourage misuse of patents in preventing the use of inventions of significant importance in environmental protection. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents: In practise it is difficult to examine patent applications relating to environmental protection technologies more quickly than other patent applications. The reason is that in most cases it is impossible for patent authorities to distinguish inventions important to environmental protection from other technical inventions disclosed in patent applications since environmental impacts are difficult to assess. Patents relating to environmental protection technologies should not enjoy reduced fees. If reduced fees are considered to be re commendable for patents relating to environmental protection, fees, or part of them, might be refunded from special funds. Special funds might also be created for supporting the patenting and development of such inventions. Patents relating to environmental protection technologies should not be subject of any particular publication. The first reason is that patent applications are in most countries 64

81 made available to the public quite soon, i.e. 18 months after the first filing date at the latest. Secondly, the inventor himself usually has an interest in exploiting his technology and selling it on the market. The need of the market would take care of the release and circulation of new information. d) The Finnish Group is not in favour of establishing any national agencies which would try to promote the exploitation of certain technologies in general. Generally it is recommendable to increase the knowledge about the patent system and various patented technologies. Usually the mutual interests of the undertakings and the patentee should take care of exploitation of the technology. Since it is sometimes difficult for a private inventor to exploit his invention for lack of necessary funds, it might however be recommendable to establish organizations or funds to promote the inventors and exploitation of their inventions. 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection The Finnish group is not in favour of granting third parties a general right to use patents relating to the environment. lt is the fundamental right of the patentee to have an exclusive right to exploit his invention. That right should only be limited if the patentee evidently misuses it or if considerable public interest requires the exploitation of the invention under compulsory licence. The present provisions of the Finnish Patent Law are not especially adjusted to be used as means for environmental protection. Therefore, the Finnish Group, although being adverse to compulsory licensing in general, would find it interesting to study whether the provisions on compulsory licences should be amended in order to meet the present and future needs. If the patentee resists the use of his patented technology and there are no other equal technologies available, a compulsory licence should be available, provided that there is a significant public interest for such a use. The Finnish Group is not in favour of any governmental measures, such as the establishment of agencies, in order to faciliate negotiations between various parties. The owner of know-how should not be obliged to release know-how in order to ensure the exploitation of the invention by other parties. The Finnish Group finds it necessary to protect the fundamental interests of a patentee and the owner of know-how. Even in connection with compulsory licensing it would be difficult to make a distinction between know-how, which is necessary for the exploitation of the invention, and know-how, which is not necessary for the same purpose, and still more difficult to award an adequate remuneration for the released know-how. 65

82 IV. International aspects of the question 1. a) Although the Finnish Group welcomes the harmonization of patent laws in all fields of technology, the currently important global environmental problems cannot be solved by harmonizing patent laws. The Group is of the opinion that no new conventions should be established for environmental issues in connection with industrial property rights. Efforts aiming at quick distribution of the know-how contained in patent publications where solutions are disclosed to any kinds of technical problems are to be supported wholeheartedly. The environmental problems encountered in the developing countries are of such proportions that all available measures should be used to promote access to and use of new technologies relating to environmental protection. 1. d) The idea of creating some kind of Patent Pool' for environmental patents e.g. under the auspices of WIPO is interesting. Any such Pool should work on a voluntary basis. A kind of pool of information already exists as data banks already contain among others information on collections of patent documents classified according to the International Patent Classification, IPC. Data banks are, however, not easily accessed by most developing countries. Summary The Finnish Group is fully conscious of the present global environmental problems. The Group also understands the importance to use all available means to solve these problems as quickly as possible. The Finnish Patent Law does not contain any provisions on environmental issues. General provisions on compulsory licences in Section 47 and on exclusion of certain inventions from patentability in Section 1 are applicable also to inventions, which have specific environmental impacts. The Finnish Group does not agree with the idea of treating inventors in this field in a less favourable way with easily granted compulsory licences etc. compared to their inventor colleagues in other technical fields. lt is generally also not possible to evaluate environmental impacts of inventions at the time the relevant patent application is examined. The Finnish Group is of the opinion that no new conventions should be established for environmental issues in connection with industrial property rights. The Group welcomes the establishment of funds and patent pools, provided that they work on a voluntary basis. 66

83 Résumé Le Groupe Finlandais est pleinement conscient des problèmes d'environnement actuels au niveau global. Le Groupe comprend aussi l'importance qu'il y a à utiliser tous les moyens disponibles pour résoudre ces problèmes aussi rapidement que possible. La Loi finlandaise sur le Brevet ne prévoit pas de dispositions relatives aux questions d'environnement. Des dispositions générales concernant les licences obligatoires, article 47, et l'exclusion de la brevetabilité de certaines inventions, article 1, s'appliquent aussi aux inventions qui ont des impacts spécifiques sur l'environnement. Le Groupe Finlandais ne partage pas l'idée de traiter les inventeurs dans ce domaine d'une manière moins favorable, notamment par des licences obligatoires facilement concédées, que leurs collègues inventeurs qui exercent dans d'autres domaines techniques. En règle général, il n'est pas possible non plus d'évaluer les impacts des inventions sur l'environnement au moment où la demande pertinente de brevet est examinée. Le Groupe Finlandais est d'avis que les questions d'environnement ne doivent pas être l'objet de nouvelles conventions en relation avec des droits de propriété industrielle. Le Groupe salue la création de fonds et de communautés en brevets, à condition qu'ils fonctionnent sur une base volontaire. Zusammenfassung Die finnische Gruppe ist sich der gegenwärtigen globalen Umweltprobleme voll bewußt. Die Gruppe versteht auch, wie wichtig es ist, von allen verfügbaren Mitteln Gebrauch zu machen, um diese Probleme so schnell wie möglich zu lösen. Das finnische Patentrecht enthält keine Bestimmungen über Umweltaspekte. Die allgemeinen Bestimmungen über Zwangslizenzen in Paragraph 47 und über Ausnahmen betreffende die Patentierbarkeit bestimmter Erfindungen in Paragraph 1 des Patentgesetzes lassen sich auf auch Erfindungen anwenden, die besondere Umweltauswirkungen haben. Die finnische Gruppe ist nicht einverstanden mit dem Gedanken, daß Erfinder in diesem Feld gegenüber ihren Erfinderkollegen anderer technischer Felder benachteiligt werden können, u.a. durch eine niedrigere Schwelle bei der Zwangslizenzierung usw. Außerdem ist es in der Regel nicht möglich, die ökologischen Auswirkungen einer Erfindung zu jenem Zeitpunkt zu beurteilen, an dem der betreffende Patentantrag untersucht wird. Die finnische Gruppe steht auf dem Standpunkt, daß in Verbindung mit den industriellen Eigentumsrechten keine neuen Übereinkünfte über Umwe!tdinge getroffen werden sollten. Die Gruppe begrüßt die Einrichtung von Fonds und Patent-Pools, vorausgesetzt, daß sie auf freiwilliger Basis arbeiten. 67

84 France France Frankreich Rapport Q 128 au nom du Groupe français par Alain GALLOCHAT (Président), Didier BOULINGUIEZ, Thierry GEISMAR, Dominique GUERRE, William HAMMOND, Denis MONEGIER DU SORBIER Brevets et protection de l'environnement Dans son rapport présenté au Congrès de Mexico en 1972, le groupe polonais avait proposé plusieurs mesures par lesquelles "le droit international de la protection de la propriété industrielle pourrait servir efficacement à la protection du milieu naturel". Il s'agissait notamment des trois points suivants: Obligation pour tous les offices de brevets de s'informer des demandes de brevets d'invention servant à la protection du milieu naturel humain. Obligation pour les offices de brevets d'examiner en premier lieu ces demandes de brevets. Licence obligatoire pour ce type d'inventions. Plus de vingt ans après, la question de la protection de l'environnement est plus que jamais d'actualité, et le Groupe français s'est donc penché sur les quatre thèmes abordés dans la Question 128 dans la perspective du Congrès de Montréal en I. Etat de la réglementation nationale 1. II n'existe pas dans la législation française de disposition spécifique concernant une possibilité d'exclure de la brevetabilité les inventions portant atteinte à l'environnement, alors qu'une telle possibilité existe s'agissant d'une atteinte portée à l'ordre public et aux bonnes moeurs (Art. L CPI); cet article vient d'ailleurs d'être renforcé par l'inclusion de l'article 7 de la loi du 28 juillet 1994 relative au respect du corps humain, l'article L de la CPI se lisant maintenant comme suit: "Ne sont pas brevetables: a) les inventions dont la publication ou la mise en oeuvre sera it contraire à l'ordre public ou aux bonnes moeurs, la mise en oeuvre d'une telle invention ne pouvant être considérée comme telle du seul faft qu'elle est interdite par une 68

85 disposition législative ou réglementaire; à ce titre, le corps humain, ses éléments et ses produits ainsi que la connaissance de la structure totale ou partielle d'un gène humain ne peuvent, en tant que tels, faire l'objet de brevets;..." Il est vrai que dans certains cas, une atteinte à l'environnement peut aussi constituer Un trouble de l'ordre public (Cf. les grandes catastrophes écologiques); c'est d'ailleurs ce que prévoit explicitement l'article 27.2 des accords TRIPS, tout au moins dans la version anglaise, l'atteinte à l'environnement étant mentionnée comme un exemple de trouble de l'ordre public. Il ne faudrait toutefois pas créer un amalgame systématique entre environnement et ordre public, chacun de ces concepts répondant à une définition bien précise. Quoi qu'il en soit, il n'existe pas dans notre législation une disposition reprenant par exemple le contenu de l'article 27.2 des accords TRIPS permettant aux états d'exclure de la brevetabilité les inventions dont il est nécessaire d'empêcher l'exploitation commerciale pour éviter de graves atteintes à l'environnement. Le Groupe français n'estime pas opportun d'avoir une disposition spécifique du type de celle prévue à l'article 27.2 des accords TRIPS précités; le Groupe français est d'ailleurs tout à fait hostile au libellé de cet Article. II est convenu que les questions touchant à l'environnement intéressent de plus en plus de monde; il est donc naturel que cela se traduise dans les inventions répondant à ce type de préoccupations. C'est ainsi qu'en France, les statistiques fournies par I'INPI montrent le taux de progression dans le nombre de demandes de brevets déposées en 1993 concernant l'environnement comparées à celles de 1992: élimination des déchets solides: + 48% lutte contre la pollution chimique: + 34 % véhicules électriques: + 120%; à ce sujet, l'inpi relève précisément dans son rapport d'activités 1993 que le nombre important de publications de brevets est le reflet d'une préoccupation croissante pour les contraintes liées à l'environnement (rejet de polluants, consommation d'énergie, nuisances sonores, encombrement...). D'autres secteurs liés à la protection de l'environnement voient également le nombre de demandes de brevets y afférent en augmentation, bien que cette dernière ne Soit pas quantifiée. S'agissant de dispositions permettant de soumettre à une licence forcée un brevet touchant à la protection de l'environnement, la législation française ne prévoit pas de telles dispositions, seules étant prévues les licences obligatoires pour non exploitation (Art. L CPI), les licences concernant les brevets de perfectionnement (Art. L CPI) ainsi que les licences d'office dans l'intérêt de la santé publique (Art. L CPI), pour les besoins de l'économie nationale (Art. L CPI) et pour les 69

86 besoins de la défense nationale (Art. L CPI). Par ailleurs le breveté a lui-même la possibilité de mettre son brevet sous le régime de la licence de droit (Art. L CPI). li. Le Groupe français ne voit aucun avantage déterminant à créer une nouvelle catégorie de licences obligatoires ou d'office, un brevet présentant un intérêt sur le plan de la protection de l'environnement pouvant toujours faire l'objet d'une demande de licence obligatoire pour non exploitation lorsque le breveté reste inactif. Existe-t-il Un conflit entre la brevetabilité d'une invention et la protection de l'environnement? 1. II est essentiel de faire une distinction entre la brevetabilité d'une invention d'une part et son exploitation d'autre part. L'amalgame entre brevetabilité et exploitation est à l'origine de dérapages importants dans le domaine de la brevetabilité du vivant et des questions d'éthique qui s'y rapportent; il est également la source de nombreuses difficultés rencontrées dans les décisions de l'office Européen des Brevets, et plus récemment en France dans les discussions qui ont précédé l'adoption de la loi précitée relative au respect du corps humain. Il est utile de rappeler que le brevet n'est pas un droit d'exploiter, mais un droit d'interdire à un tiers l'exploitation du brevet sans l'accord préalable du breveté. Dès lors que la législation ne contient pas de dispositions permettant aux Offices des Brevets de rejeter une demande de brevet couvrant une invention susceptible de porter atteinte à l'environnement, le brevet correspondant doit être délivré (dès lors que les autres critères de brevetabilité sont effectivement remplis). Si lors de l'exploitation, celle-ci se révèle néfaste pour l'environnement, l'état ou les états concernés doivent pouvoir interdire une telle exploitation; il convient d'ailleurs de remarquer que ce caractère néfaste ne se révèlera pas forcément au début de l'exploitation, mais au cours des années: il est donc bien illusoire de vouloir statuer sur une demande de brevet, sur le point de savoir si l'invention est néfaste ou non, alors que les paramètres techniques ne sont pas toujours connus au moment du dépôt de la demande de brevet. En outre, les experts internationaux eux-mêmes ne sont pas tous d'accord entre eux pour ce qui est du caractère néfaste de telle ou telle invention; on peut citer à titre d'exemple le cas des CFC (Chloro Fluoro Carbone) largement utilisés pendant de nombreuses années dans les systèmes réfrigérants ou comme gaz propulseur dans les bombes aérosols; ces produits ont été proscrits comme favorisant le réchauffement de la Terre en dégradant la couche d'ozone. Doit-on aujourd'hui refuser de délivrer des brevets couvrant des inventions utilisant ces produits pour les applications précitées, alors que des scientifiques internationalement connus estiment aujourd'hui qu'il n'y a pas de relation entre la dégradation de la couche d'ozone et l'effet de serre responsable du réchauffement précité? 70

87 Dans l'incertitude, il est préférable de délivrer le brevet, quitte à en interdire, postérieurement, l'exploitation en cas de risque avéré pour l'environnement. 2. Le Groupe français estime que la délivrance d'un brevet n'est pas en soi de nature à porter atteinte à la protection de l'environnement; comme cela a déjà été indiqué, le libellé de l'article 27.2 des accords TRIPS est particulièrement préoccupant puisqu'il prévoit que: "Les Parties pourront exclure de la brevetabilité les inventions dont II est nécessaire d'empêcher l'exploitation commerciale sur leur territoire pour protéger l'ordre public ou la moralité, y compris pour protéger la santé et la vie des personnes et des animaux ou préserver les végétaux, ou pour éviter de graves atteintes à l'environnement, à condition que cette exclusion ne tienne pas uniquement au fait que l'exploitation est interdite parla législation intérieure." Seule l'exploitation est visée, ce qui est sensiblement différent de l'exclusion prévue à l'article L a) CPI qui se réfère à la publication ou l'exploitation de l'invention incriminée. En fait, c'est souvent plus l'usage qui est fait d'une invention, plutôt que l'invention elle-même, qui peut porter atteinte à l'ordre public, aux bonnes moeurs ou à l'environnement; cela plaide bien en faveur d'une distinction entre brevetabilité et exploitation, la délivrance de brevet n'étant pas en soi constitutif d'une atteinte. Ill. Les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement doivent-ils bénéficier d'un régime particulier? 1. L'orientation de travail suggère trois mesures susceptibles de favoriser l'examen et la délivrance de brevets relatifs aux technologies de protection de l'environnement: examen plus rapide taxe réduite publication particulière. Pour importants que soient les problèmes de l'environnement, le Groupe français ne peut approuver ces mesures qui constitueraient un régime dérogatoire par rapport aux procédures habituelles, mais préfère rester dans le cadre de ces procédures habituelles. D'ailleurs, accepter ces mesures aboutirait certainement à ce que d'autres domaines tout aussi importants, tels que celui de la santé publique, puissent être soumis aux mêmes règles dérogatoires; or dans le domaine des médicaments précisément, la tendance a été, au contraire, d'aller d'un régime dérogatoire (Brevet Spécial de Médicament) vers le régime de droit commun, ce qui est tout à fait souhaitable, la multiplicité de régimes dérogatoires étant source de difficultés. 71

88 L'orientation du travail prévoit également la possibilité de créer des agences nationales qui suivraient attentivement la délivrance de brevets relatifs à l'environnement; il existe en France de telles agences dont la mission pourrait être effectivement de surveiller et valoriser les brevets impliqués. Ces agences pourraient constituer un réseau national, voire international, en vue d'une valorisation maximale des inventions portant amélioration à l'environnement. 2. Pour les mêmes raisons que celles citées précédemment, il ne sembie pas opportun d'avoir un régime spécifique d'exploitation par des tiers des brevets concernés; là encore, les règles habituelles de licence obligatoire prévues à l'art. L CPI paraissent tout à fait suffisantes et permettent de rester dans le cadre du droit commun en matière de brevet. Il est d'ailleurs à noter qu'il n'y a que peu de jurisprudence concernant de telles licences obligatoires, et qu'aucune licence d'office dans l'intérêt de la santé publique ou pour les besoins de l'économie nationale n'a, à ce jour, été accordée. IV. Aspects internationaux de la question Les problèmes d'environnement dépassent effectivement le seul territoire national, la catastrophe de Tchernobyl nous l'a malheureusement rappelé; il serait donc utile de prévoir une harmonisation des lois de brevet, sans pour autant qu'une telle harmonisation soit limitée au seul domaine de l'environnement. En revanche une harmonisation mondiale, du type envisagé à l'ompi, portant sur les problèmes d'exclusion à la brevetabilité et sur les licences obligatoires, notamment pour défaut d'exploitation ou pour un perfectionnement important, serait tout à fait recommandable. Une convention séparée du type de celle élaborée à la Conférence de Rio pourrait être envisagée, encore qu'il faille éviter: la multiplication des conventions, l'interférence existant entre plusieurs lois ou conventions; la Convention de Rio est à ce titre exemplaire: élaborée dans le but de préserver la diversité biologique, notamment dans les pays en voie de développement, cette convention a pour objectif la conservation de la diversité biologique, l'utilisation durable de ses éléments et le partage juste et équitable des avantages découlant de l'exploitation des ressources génétiques, notamment grâce à un accès satisfaisant aux ressources génétiques et à un transfert approprié des techniques pertinentes et grâce à un financement adéquat. Cette convention, et notamment son article 16, prévoit bien que la technologie précitée pourra faire l'objet d'une protection par brevet, mais prévoit aussi en son article 16 alinéa 5 que: 72

89 'Les Parties contractantes, reconnaissant que les brevets et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle peuvent avoir une influence sur l'application de la Convention, coopèrent à cet égard sans préjudice des législations nationales et du droit international pour assurer que ces droits s'exercent à l'appui et non à l'encontre de ses objectifs." Ainsi, cette convention partant d'un objectif tout à fait louable arrive à une situation ambigue et paradoxale où les droits de brevets peuvent ne plus être assurés; si une nouvelle convention internationale devait voir le jour, il conviendrait d'éviter une telle situation. Le Groupe français ne pense pas qu'un régime particulier pour les pays en voie de développement leur permettant d'accéder rapidement au savoir-faire en matière de technologie relative à la protection de l'environnement présente un intérêt particulier; en revanche, la mise en oeuvre de brevets couvrant des inventions susceptibles de porter atteinte à l'environnement de ces pays devrait pouvoir être interdite par lesdits pays, les brevetés responsables de telles atteintes pouvant faire, le cas échéant, l'objet de sanctions dans les autres pays. Le Groupe français ne voit pas l'intérêt d'instituer une Organisation internationale qui acquérerait des droits sur les brevets, et qui transférerait à des tiers ces droits sous forme de licence; le fonctionnement d'une telle organisation serait particulièrement complexe, notamment sur le plan financier, et les relations directes breveté/licencié sont de loin préférables. 73

90 Grande-Bretagne Great Britain Grossbritannien Report Q 128 by the British Group Patents and protection of the environment General observations It may be helpful to quote the relevant paragraph as it is in TRIPS (Article 27.2), since the Reporter-General's guidelines do not do so. It is noteworthy that the paragraph does not deal with inventions for the protection of the environment but with prevention of exploitation of environmentally harmful inventions: Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including... to avoid serious prejudice to the environment... Patent Offices are not regulatory agencies. They are not equipped for any such role and should not be required to fulfil it. In English law, patenting of an invention does not give a right to exploitation. Patenting gives the patentee the right to prevent exploitation by others. To exclude something from patentability does not in any conceivable way prevent exploitation of that thing. To detract from industrial property rights, whether by exclusion from patentability or subjecting patentees to undue constraints, is to discourage the innovation and investment which those rights exist to protect and encourage. For this detraction to be allowed to develop in any field is deplorable. The way to encourage what is perceived to be environmentally beneficial is by fiscal or other inducements, and to discourage what is perceived to be harmful is by regulation or legislation, all lying outside industrial property law. 74

91 Dealing with the specific questions: I. National Rules 1.1 Are there in the UK particular problems which are raised nowadays by protection for the environment, in relation to industrial property rights? No problems that we know of. Any problems arising from e.g. genetic modification or nuclear reaction are capable of being dealt with by, and are indeed controlled by and monitored under, regulation or legislation irrespective of whether the relevant materials or processes are or are not patented or patentable. 1.2 Are there specific provisions concerning: limit on the possibility of filing applications for patents when the inventions are likely to affect the environment; and particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment? No. 1.3 Is the number of patents involved with environmental protection currently increasing in the UK? Not known. 1.4 Are there provisions which permit a compulsoty licence on a patent concerning environmental protection? There are no special provisions. However general provisions exist which allow for compulsory licensing in case of abuse of monopoly, one aspect of which is non-exploitation of valuable inventions. There are also general provisions for governmental use. In all these cases the patentee is compensated. Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? This does not pertain to the function of patenting - see general remarks 3 and 4 above. The answer to the first question is that it lies within the competence of any government to prohibit or control any activity which it regards as harmful to the common good. The exploitation of any patented invention is at all times subject to the general law. The grant of a patent cannot in itself in any way harm the environment. 75

92 Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? lt is wrong to attempt to differentiate the patentability of inventions or the effects of patents by subject matter or intended use. That this has been done in some countries in relation to chemical product, pharmaceutical, medical, nuclear and food inventions does not mean that it was right to do so or that any similar action should be attempted in other fields. lt follows that there is no need to define the field of what is environmentally harmful. Furthermore we doubt whether it could be defined, except arbitrarily and (unfairly) by reference to classes/subclasses of the International Classification. That there is no link between non-patentability and nonexploitation (see above) is another reason to dismiss any such attempt. III. 1 Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents: Should the principle of special measures be adopted? lt follows from the above that it would be wrong to set up any special systems and it would be undesirable to try to do so. The impossibility of defining the field, alone, shows the impracticality. Measures such as accelerated prosecution and reduced fees are irrelevant to the question because they should be generally available in all proper cases. III. 2 Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection: In consideration of the importance of environmental protection, should third parties be granted a right to use patents covering inventions relating to the environment? Should we go as far as obliging the owner of know-how in the matter to communicate it to third parties to ensure effective exploitation of the invention? In the United Kingdom the current provisions for compulsory licensing safeguard the public against abuse of monopoly, including wilful failure of a patentee to work or permit working of an invention. In general, compulsory licensing provisions which are perceived to be unduly burdensome can act as a deterrent to patenting or to seeking to innovate. Facilitation of contacts is desirable (in all fields) but interference in contractual negotiations between parties is strongly to be deplored. No. This would be expropriation of know-how. IV. International aspects of the Question: 1. There is no doubt that environment problems go beyond just national territoiy. a) Should we envisage providing for harmonisation of patent laws relating to environmental protection? 76

93 could such harmonisation be envisaged in the draft for harmonisation of patent law which is being discussed by WIPO? should it be set forth in the Paris Convention? Is it not preferable to provide for a separate convention of the type drawn up at the Rio Conference in 1992? Should there be a particular system for the developing countries, to permit them to have fast access to the know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection? Is it possible to envisage the establishment of an international organisation which would acquire rights in respect of patents (Patent Pool) and which would transfer such rights to third parties in the form of a licence? We have no sympathy with many of these proposals; some of them seem to be misguided and/or irrelevant to industrial property. Proposal (C) for example, appears to envisage expropriation, and as to (d) is the agency to dictate to the inventor in which countries patent applications are to be filed? Harmonization is always desirable provided that it does not harm industrial property rights, which encourage innovation and investment; facilitation is a matter to be dealt with in a different framework, but not by a separate convention limited to environmental matters. Summary We believe there is little or no interrelation between patent (or other industrial property) law and harm to the environment. Some of the suggestions canvassed would represent a totally unacceptable attack on industrial property rights. The proper mode for encouraging environmentally beneficial and discouraging environmentally harmful developments is through fiscal and other inducements and by regulation and legislation all lying outside industrial property law. Résumé Nous pensons qu'il y a peu ou qu'il n'y a aucune corrélation entre le droit des brevets (ou autre propriété industrielle) et l'atteinte à l'environnement. Certaines des suggestions débattues représenteraient une attaque totalement inacceptable à des droits de propriété industrielle. La manière appropriée pour encourager des développements bénéfiques pour l'environnement et décourager des développement nuisibles à l'environnement est de le 77

94 faire par des incitations fiscales et autres ou par une réglementation et législation qui sont toutes étrangères au droit de la propriété industrielle. Zusammenfassung Zwischen dem Patentgesetz (oder anderen Gesetzen zum Schutze des gewerblichen Eigentums) und einer Umweltgefährdung besteht unseres Erachtens nur eine geringe oder keinerlei Wechselbeziehung. Einige der diskutierten Vorschläge würden einen vollkommen untragbaren Angriff auf gewerbliche Schutzrechte darstellen. Der richtige Weg zur Förderung umweltfreundlicher und zur Hemmung umweltgefâhrdender Entwicklungen besteht in steuerlichen und anderen Anreizen sowie in Vorschriften und Gesetzen, die alle ausserhalb des Gesetzes zum Schutze gewerblichen Eigentums liegen. 78

95 Hongrie Hungary Ungarn Report in the name of the Hungarian Group by Mrs. Eva FRIEDMANN, Mrs. Katalin MARMAROSI, Dr. Attila AMANDI (Chairman of the Working Group), Imre MOLNAR, Ernô NAGY, Dr. Eva PARRAGH and András WEICHINGER Patents and protection of the environment I. State of the national rules In Hungary problems concerning the protection of the environment are of outstanding importance. This is particularly due to the present condition of soil, water and air in Hungary and the partial lack of modern environment-friendly technologies. However, no such problems have been raised in relation to industrial property rights. The Hungarian Patents Act of 1969 is silent in dealing specifically with inventions relating to the protection of the environment. There are no special provisions - limiting the possibility of filing patent applications covering inventions which would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment; and relating to patents concerned with the protection of the environment. While the Patents Act contains no specific provisions relating to inventions for the protection of the environment, there are general provisions which have an indirect impact on such inventions. According to Art. 6 Par. 3(b) of the Patents Act an invention is excluded from patent protection if the exploitation thereof is contrary to any provision of law or to socially accepted moral rules. In Hungary strict laws harmonized with those of the European Union regulate the protection of the environment. Accordingly any patent application covering an invention which violates environmental protection can be rejected or any such granted patent can be declared null and void. Moreover, the exploitation of such inventions constitutes a direct violation of the law relating to the protection of environment. There is certain case-law dealing with the patentability of inventions concerned with environmental protection. According to Hungarian law decisions of the National Office of 79

96 Inventions are subject to revision by the Metropolitan Court of Budapest while the decisions of this first instance court can be appealed with the Supreme Court. Dr. Maria Tun, President of the competent Senate of the Metropolitan Court of Budapest, published a paper of high importance in the Periodical of the Hungarian Association for the Protection of industrial Property [Jurisprudence of the Court in the case of patenting technical solutions relating to environmental protection; MIE Kôzlemények 26, (1985)]. The author emphasizes the importance of such inventions and sets forth that the law and jurisprudence should support this field of outstanding social-economical significance and the work of the Court should promote such inventive activity. The relevant cases handled by the Court are mainly patent applications rejected by the National Office of Inventions for lack of novelty, particularly for lack of inventive step. According to Art. 2 of the Patents Act an invention is novel if it has not become public to an extent as to enable one skilled in the art to work out the same. The Hungarian concept of novelty comprises both literal identity and obvious variations. Thus an invention is not novel if it can be derived from the state of art in an obvious manner, i.e. if the working out thereof required no inventive activity (lack of inventive step). The Court holds that due to the importance of such inventions on the one hand and in view of the complex character of the technical problem to be solved on the other, such patent applications and patents are to be subjected to a certain extent to a preferential treatment. Namely, in marginal cases the inventive step should be judged in favour of the applicant. lt is to be emphasized that this preferential treatment is by no means an easy grant of patent applications relating to environmental protection but this jurisprudence is to be limited to borderline cases. The article of judge Dr. Tun presents abundant case-law as a support of the above jurisprudence of the Court. We refer here to some cases. A patent application related to a process for the purification of sewage of paper industry. The essence of the patent application is that swollen silicates are added to the sewage together with macromolecular substances which react with said silicates and with the fibres and fillers present in the sewage. The National Office of Inventions rejected the patent application because of lack of novelty. The Examiner held that according to prior art the above substances were known to be used for the purification of sewage and the patent application was nothing more than transfer of a known technical solution to another field of technics. The Metropolitan Court reversed this decision and granted the patent. The Court argued that the sewage of paper industry had a special composition and contained colloidal contaminations having a high oxygen consumption and for this reason it could not be aforeseen that the known treating procedure would work so efficiently in the purification of such a specific sewage to be purified [Court decision No. 3. Pk /1973]. Another court decision was concerned with a patent application directed to the preparation of a detergent. According to the invention phosphate components were replaced 80

97 by polymers comprising carboxy or carboxylate and hydroxy groups. The National Office of Inventions rejected this patent application and stated that the use of such polymers for the substitution of phosphate salts was known and the elaboration of the invention did not require inventive activity. The Court overruled this decision and granted the patent. According to the reasoning of the Court the use of the polymers in detergents resulted in such unforeseen advantages which justify the grant of a patent. The Court also emphasized the environmental protection aspects of the invention by stating that the invention enabled the elimination of phosphate salts from the detergent and replaced this component by polymers which meet the requirements of the protection of the environment [Court decision No. 3. Pk /1973]. A further important court decision related to a patent application entitled "Process and apparatus for the purification of diluted dung and sewage of industrial scale animal husbandry. The National Office of Inventions rejected the patent application and expressed the opinion that all steps of the process and parts of the apparatus were disclosed in prior art. This decision was confirmed by the Metropolitan Court but the appeal of applicant was successful. The Supreme Court remitted the case to the first instance court who granted the patent. The Court argued that the invention produced an unexpected result which could not be aforeseen. The combined use of elements known per se was inventive because it was more than a mere transfer of known steps to another purpose and the invention resulted in unforeseen advantages [Court decision No. 3.Pk / In another case the National Office of Inventions rejected a patent application directed to an additive of lubricating oil, said additive comprising an oil-soluble alkali thiophosphonate. The reasoning of the rejection was that the use of thiophosponates for the problem to be solved failed to provide any unforeseen effect and was not new. The Metropolitan Court reversed this decision and acknowledged the patentability of the invention. The Court attached great importance to the fact that the invention resulted in the improved and higher yield utilization of mineral oil, a valuable raw material running short [3. Pk /1981]. The above jurisprudence is reflected by further decisions relating to cases being in connection with saving of energy. 3. Table 1 enclosed presents unofficial statistics of patent applications relating to environmental protection filed in Hungary in the period of 1989 to The compilation also contains the distribution of patent applications among various fields of the protection of the environment. The statistics shows a certain decrease of the number of patent applications in 1992 and This reduction is, however, not due to a diminishing interest for environmental protection but is rather connected with the recent recession of Hungarian industry. This is also manifested in the increase of the ratio of foreign applicants in the overall number of patent applications relating to the protection of the environment. 81

98 We note with some pride that Hungarian inventions contributed to the elimination of one of the biggest environmental catastrophes of this century, the extinction of burning oil-wells in Kuwait in the year of These Hungarian inventions, protected in two Hungarian pending patent applications filed in 1991, relate to gas turbine jet engines mounted on caterpillar vehicles and were successfully and efficiently used in Kuwait. 4. Compulsory licenses are regulated by Art. 21 to 23 of the Patents Act. However, in Hungary this legal institution can only be applied in two cases, namely non-working of a patented invention and for dependent patents. There are no provisions which would allow the grant of a compulsory license in the interests of national defence, public health, environmental protection or the national economy. Moreover, the Patents Act fails to grant the State the possibility to exploit a patent for the above purposes without any licence. The Amendment of the Patents Act - Law No. VII of 1994, which entered into force on July 1, is also silent on any such provisions. Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an Invention and protection of the environment? The Hungarian Group is of the view that the actual Hungarian Patents Act fully meets the requirements referred to above. In our opinion the exploitation of an invention being harmful to the environment is violation of the Law for the protection of the environment. The patentability of such an invention can be denied on the basis of Art. 6, Par. 3(b) (see Chapter I, Art. 2 of the present Report). We just mention here that it is rather unlikely that the environment-damaging character of an invention would appear from the text of the patent application. While in some cases an experienced Examiner might draw such conclusions on reading the patent application (e.g. emission of poisoning gases in high concentration), we are of the opinion that it is a better solution to forbid the exploitation of such inventions by virtue of the strength of the law than to enable the rejection of a patent application on the basis of the decision of a single person, i.e. the Examiner. The grant of a patent is just a document, which certainly does not affect environmental protection per se. An invention may be exploited without patent protection, too. lt is the exploitation of inventions if it is detrimental to the environment, which should be forbidden and avoided. Thus, a distinction should be made between the exploitation of an invention harmful for the environment and the patentability thereof. III. Should patents concerning envîronmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? The term "patents relating to environmental protection" should be interpreted in the broadest sense possible. Accordingly, this term should encompass patents whose very 82

99 object is directly to provide environmental protection and also patents which, without having the direct object of improving environmental protection, achieve this by preventing or reducing adverse effects on nature and cause no harm (e.g. environment-friendly technology whereby air-polluting gases or water-contaminating substances are formed in smaller amounts or even not at all). Moreover, environment should be interpreted broadly as to comprise all aspects of human life, environment of all living organism, the environment of the surroundings and settlements etc. According to the view of the Hungarian Group, taking into consideration the importance of environmental protection which is not limited to certain countries and may affect the life of our children and grandchildren, particular attention should be devoted to patents relating to such inventions. However, we hold that the Hungarian legal provisions constitute a suitable framework for the efficient utilization of this aspect of industrial property rights. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents All enumerated legal instruments are reasonable and partly incorporated into the Hungarian Patents Act. We agree that patents relating to environmental protection technologies should be examined more quickly. According to the Hungarian Patents Act patent applications can obtain an out of turn examination, subject to payment of a fee. A proposal: it should be possible to subject patent applications directed to the protection of environment to a free of charge accelerated examination. In view of the high and constantly increasing annuities we support this proposal and agree with the reduction of annual maintenance fees of patents and patent applications covering environment-protecting inventions. C) Yes; the early publication of patent applications or patents relating to the protection of the environment significantly contributes to the quick promulgation of such inventions. However, in this respect no amendment of the Hungarian Patents Act is needed because in Hungary patent applications are laid open to public inspection 18 months after the priority or filing date. According to the opinion of the Hungarian Group it would not be proper to allow a national agency to interfere with the granting of patents. On the other hand we would welcome the assistance of such agencies in the promulgation of environment-protecting technologies and in the promotion of the conclusion of license agreements with the patentee. In Hungary such tasks might be taken up into the activities of the National Committee for Technical Development and the Ministry for the Protection of Environment. We propose that in the course of meritorious examination procedure in marginal cases a decision on inventive level should fall in favour of the applicant. 83

100 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection In consideration of the importance of environmental protection, we hold that third parties may be granted the right to use patents covering inventions relating to the environment within the framework of compulsory licenses. The Hungarian Group thinks that the compulsory license is the proper means if the parties do not arrive to an amicable agreement. In Hungary, the Patents Act contains sufficient provisions as to compulsory licenses. According to Art. 21 of the Patents Act a compulsory license is to be granted if the patentee fails to exploit the invention in the territory of the country within four years from the filing date of the patent application or three years from the date of grant of the patent - the later date being relevant - in order to meet the requirements of domestic demand. The term "meet the requirements of domestic demand" is subject to the interpretation of the Courts on a case-by-case basis. In compulsory license court procedures relating to patents which play an important role in the protection of the environment, the term requirements of domestic demand" should be interpreted in favour of the interests of the public and in such cases the granting of a compulsory license should be rendered easier. In general, we disapprove of the use of governmental measures, except for case of force majeure (catastrophes of nature such as floods, huge environmental pollutions etc). The obligation of the owner of know-how in the matter to communicate it to third parties to ensure effective exploitation of the invention would go too far and would constitute an exaggerated disadvantage for the owner of such know-how. The Hungarian Group is of the opinion that such a service may only form part of license agreements directed to the grant of rights of exploitation and transfer of technology and know-how. IV. International aspects of the Question According to the Hungarian Group a certain harmonisation of patent laws relating to environmental protection might be useful. This should be done in the framework of harmonisation of patent law which is being discussed by WIPO rather than in the Paris Convention. The reason is that such type of harmonisation is rather a recommendation than of an obligatory character. We are against providing a separate convention of the type drawn up at the Rio Conference in The interests of the different parties are so remote from each other that the chances of concluding such an agreement in the not too far future are rather small. The Hungarian Group strongly recommends to elaborate a particular system for the developing countries to permit them to have fast access to the know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection. This is particularly true since such countries are highly endangered and rather defenceless against such dangers. it is 84

101 highly important that said particular system should be in possession of appropriate financial means to enable developing countries to exploit such technology. In addition to the costs of direct use of the know-how and technology referred to, the adaptation of the procedures to local conditions might also be very expensive. Moreover, the effects of environmental catastrophes which take place in developing countries can easily extend to other countries, too. d) The establishment of an international organisation which would acquire rights in respect of patents (Patent Pool) and which would transfer such rights to third parties in the form of a licence might be useful and expedient, particularly in respect of developing countries (see para. c) above). The Hungarian Group wishes to point to the importance of sufficient financial means and support which enable developing countries to introduce and exploit such know-how and technology. Any particular system and international organisation should also have the possibility to control the use of such funds in an efficient manner so that the money should be actually used for the intended purpose. In addition to financial assistance, the developing countries can also be supported by equipments, apparatuses, accessories etc., too. Conclusion In view of the immense importance of the protection of the environment the Hungarian Group welcomes the decision of taking up Question 128 into the agenda of the Montreal Congress. From the industrial property right aspect "environmental protection" should be given the broadest interpretation. This term should by no means be limited to patents directly contributing to environmental protection but should also comprise inventions which prevent or reduce adverse effects on nature and thus prevent environmental pollution. Patent applications directed to the environmental protection deserve preferential treatment which might be quicker examination, reduced fees, early publication and in the meritorial examination procedure in marginal cases a decision on inventive step in favour of applicant. In the absence of an amicable agreement third parties should be granted a right to use patents covering inventions relating to the environment on the basis of a compulsory license for insufficient working of the invention rather than based on governmental measures. The exploitation of an invention being harmful to the environment should be severely prohibited and violation of the law for the protection of environment should be severely sanctioned. 85

102 Since environmental pollution does not respect political borders between countries, international aspects of the Question are important. This particularly relates to developing countries which are partly unprotected and partly potential sources of big disasters extending beyond their territories. In addition to harmonisation of patent laws relating to environmental protection, developing countries should have increased access to know-how and technology relating to environmental protection and these countries should also be granted a financial and material support to exploit such inventions and know-how. Hungarian legislation regulates environment protection aspects of patent law substantially to a sufficient and proper extent and provides a suitable legal framework to the exploitation of patents directed to the protection of the environment. 86

103 Table 1 Patent applications relating to the protection of the environment, filed in Hungary between 1989 and 1993 Year No. of patent applications Total 740 Distribution of patent applications among various fields of environmental protection Field No. % Treatment of sewage and sewage slime Disinfection, amelioration and recultivation of soil Neutralization, disposal and utilization of waste material Purification of air 30 4 Total Distribution of applicants Year Foreign applicants Hungarian applicants % %

104 Résumé Considérant la grande importance de la protection de l'environnement, le Groupe hongrois félicite l'aippi pour avoir mis à l'ordre du jour de la Réunion de Montréal la Question 128. Vue du régime de la propriété industrielle, la définition de la notion protection de l'environnement" doit être interpretée aussi largement que possible. Ce terme ne doit pas être limité aux brevets dont l'objet est directement la protection de l'environnement, mais doit embrasser également des inventions brevetées qui sont susceptibles de mettre obstacle à la pollution de la nature ou au moins de réduire celle-ci et qui par suite peuvent supporter à la protection de l'environnement. Des mesures doivent être prises pour assurer un régime particulier et préférentiel aux dépôts de brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement. A titre d'exemple: l'examen accéléré, des taxes réduites, la publication rapide et en ce qui concerne l'examen quand au fond de l'activité inventive, dans les situations limites, une décision prise en faveur du déposant. Si les parties n'aboutissent pas à un accord amiable sur l'exploitation de l'invention favorable à l'environnement et le brevet n'est pas exploité, (I est souhaitable qu'une licence obugatoire soit accordée en faveur du tiers; une telle réglementation semble plus appropriée que des mesures gouvernementales. Doit être strictement défendu l'exploitation des inventions qui ont des effets désavantageux par rapport à l'environnement et celle-ci doit être sanctionnée comme infraction de la loi sur la protection de l'environnement. Considérant que les problèmes de l'environnement dépassent le seul territoire national et ne connaissent pas de frontières, les aspects internationaux de la question sont fort importants. Cette observation concerne surtout les pays en développement, qui sont d'une part mal protégés et qui d'autre part peuvent être considerés comme de sources potentielles de graves catastrophes écologiques avec des conséquences hors de leurs territoires. Une harmonisation des lois de brevet, portant sur la protection de l'environnement doit être envisagée, de plus il serait souhaitable que les pays en développement ayent un accès facile au savoir-faire en matière de technologie relative à la protection de l'environnement. Il est également souhaitable que les moyens financiers et techniques soient mis à la disposition des pays en développement, pour qu'ils soient en mesure d'exploiter et d'utiliser des inventions de ce genre. La réglementation hongroise des aspects de l'environnement par rapport à la propriété industrielle est satisfaisante. Le droit hongrois assure aux brevets qui concernent la protection de l'environnement une possibilité d'exploitation satisfaisante. 88

105 Zusammenfassung Mit Rücksicht auf die sehr grosse Bedeutung des Umweltschutzes begrüsst die ungarische Landesgruppe die Entscheidung, die Frage 128 auf die Agenda der Konferenz von Montreal aufzunehmen. Vorn Gesichtspunkt des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes angesehen soute der Definition Umweltschutz" die möglichst breiteste Auslegung gegeben werden. Dieser Ausdruck sollte keinesfalls auf Patente eingeschränkt werden, welche als Gegenstand direkt den Schutz der Umwelt haben, sondern sollte vielmehr auch Patente umfassen, welche die Beeinträchtigungen und Schädigungen der Natur verhindern oder vermindern und dadurch zum Schutz der Umwelt beitragen. Es sollten Massnahmen getroffen werden, welche die Prüfung von Patentanmeldungen bzw. Erteilung von Patenten auf dem Gebiet des Umweltschutzes speziell fördern. Als Beispiel können raschere Prüfung, geringere Gebühren, eine besondere Veröffentlichung und in Grenzfällen eine Beurteilung der Erfindungshöhe zu Gunsten der Anmelderin erwähnt werden. In Abwesenheit einer gütlichen Vereinbarung der Parteien sollte Dritten für die Anwendung einer in Zusammenhang mit dem Umweltschutz ausgearbeiteten patentierten Erfindung ein Recht auf Grund einer wegen Nichtausübung der Erfindung erteilten Zwansgslizenz eingeräumt werden; diese Lösung scheint zweckmässiger als die staatlichen Massnahmen zu sein. Die praktische Anwendung von Erfindungen, welche schädliche Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt haben, sollte am strengsten verboten und als Verstoss gegen das Gesetz für Umweltschutz schwer sanktioniert werden. Im Hinblick darauf, dass Umweltprobleme den nationalen Rahmen überschreiten und die Landesgrenzen nicht anerkennen, sollte den internationalen Aspekten der Frage grosse Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet werden. Dies betriffi insbesondere die Entwicklungsländer, welche einerseits ziemlich schutzlos sind und andererseits als potentielle Quellen grosser Naturkatastrophen auch ausserhalb ihrer Gebiete angesehen werden können. Eine Harmonisierung der Patentgesetze in Bezug des Umweltschutzes sollte vorgesehen werden und Entwicklungsländer sollten einen erleichterten und rascheren Zugang zum Know-how betreffend die Technologie für den Umweltschutz erhalten. Ausserdem sollten Entwicklungsländern die finanziellen und technischen Mittel zur Verfügung gestellt werden, um die Ausübung und Anwendung solcher Erfindungen zu ermöglichen. Die in Zusammenhang mit dem gewerblichen Rechtsschutz stehenden Aspekte des Umweltschutzes werden durch das ungarische Recht praktisch zufriedenstellend geregelt. Im Rahmen der ungarischen Gesetze können Patente, welche als Gegenstand den Umweltschutz haben, in einem ausreichenden Masse ausgeübt werden. 89

106 Irlande Ireland Irland Report by the Irish Group Patents and protection of the environment I. State of the national rules The public in Ireland is increasingly aware of the impact on the environment caused by traditional activities such as agriculture, and more recently fish farming and the growing chemical/pharmaceutical industries. Ireland has never had any recognized 'dirty' heavy industry. All new industrial ventures are obliged to provide, as part of the planning process, an environmental impact study. Planning licences seek to minimise or remove adverse environmental affects. Environmental 'watch-dog' groups are increasing in numbers and effectiveness throughout the country. The Green Party is represented in Parliament. The recently introduced Patents Act, 1992 is silent regarding any special provisions relating to inventions which might protect the environment. There is no discernable trend in the number of National patents granted or sought for inventions directed towards protection of the environment. Since joining the European Patent Convention in 1992 the experience of the EPO in this area will be reflected in European Patents designating Ireland. Il. There are no specific provisions regarding compulsory licences of patents relating to environmental protection. Such patents would, however, be subject to the compulsory licence and use of inventions for the service of the State, provisions which exist under Irish Patent Law. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? Patent protection may be refused for inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality. This sanction has seldom been exercised in practice and is unlikely to be used to protect the environment. Better protection for the environment exists under planning legislation. 90

107 The grant of a Patent in this jurisdiction does not guarantee a right to use the invention. Use of an invention may be limited or prevented entirely by the application of other considerations, e.g. dominant patents, planning permission, etc.. The Patent System should concern itself solely with the protection of invention. lt cannot, and should not, be charged with any other regulatory function outside of its historical parameters. The refusal of patents for alleged environmentally damaging inventions could result in the proliferation of secret processes which would be outside the control of the Patent System in any event. Ultimately, the environment can be protected only by education, effective legislation and Regional/National properly empowered environmental protection agencies supported by political will. Effective International consensus and action, is likely to prove elusive. Ill. Should patents concerning environment enjoy the benefit of a particular system? The Patent System as it exists in Ireland is capable of accommodating inventions designed to protect the environment and it is not considered that such inventions be the subject of a particular system. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents It is not seen how accelerated examination might assist such inventions. Generally, absent regulatory compliance, etc., inventions for which there is a demand, are exploited before a patent is granted. In the Group's experience, delays in examination may hamper enforcement of a patent but not necessarily its commercial development. The protection of the environment has spawned an industry with infinite potential. Large investment is being made by Governments and the private sector. Encouragement by way of reduction in fees would appear redundant, except to 'small' inventors. Parties interested and capable of exploiting a particular technology generally monitor carefully developments in their fields. The dissemination of technical information promptly is enormously desirable and any steps that might be taken by Patent Offices or others in this regard are to be encouraged. An effective 'marriage broker' between inventor/developer and the commercial exploiter of the invention would be welcome. 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environment protection The provisions of the Patents Act, 1992 relating to Compulsory Licences would appear adequate to accommodate the availability of inventions relating to environmental protection. Any requirement for the compulsory divulging of know-how would not be recommended. 91

108 IV. International aspects of the question Where Patent laws are capable of harmonisation, there is no doubt but that harmonisation is desirable. However, as the replies indicate, it is far from clear what role the Patent System can effectively contribute to the protection of the environment. Once a meaningful role for the Patent system is identified, and greeted with general consensus, then it is desirable that International implementation takes place forthwith. Implementation should take place by the route least likely to cause delay. Yes, protection of the environment is of universal concern and developing nations should be supplied, by whatever means that are available, with technology and knowhow relating to environmental protection. The creation of such an International organisation as mooted is not recommended for consideration at this time. Conclusion lt is considered that the only means of protecting and preserving the environment is by the education of society supported by strictly enforced environmental protection legislation. The role of the Patent System in environmental protection remains to be decided. 92

109 Italie Italy Italien Report in the name of the Italian Group by Gianfranco DRAGOTTI, Marco FAGGIONI and Guido PICCIONE Patents and protection of the environment The advanced industrialization has induced and induces also in Italy remarkable problems of environmental pollution in the widest meaning of this wording. If other natural factors, such as the relevant coastal extension and the fact that Italy is geographically positioned centerwise of the sea routes interesting the Mediterranean Sea, whereby daily risks exist of being involved in ecological disasters (for instance connected to the oil traffic and to the sea transportation of chemical products and raw materials), are added to the above condition it is evident that the environment protection may have a very high importance for our country. The Environment Ministry has been created by the law 8 July 1986 n. 349 ("Institution of the Environment Ministry and provisions in the matter of environment damages"), with the task of "assuring, in an organic framework, the promotion, the saving and the recovery of environment conditions consistent with the basic interests of the general public and with the life quality, as well as the conservation and the development of the natural heritage and the defense of the natural resources from the pollution'. The Environment Ministry, according to what is foreseen by the instituting law and by subsequent provisions and regulations for their actuation, has a number of competences with important effects on the industrial world and in the field of the novel technological findings. More particularly it is responsible of determining the product characteristics of combustibles, fuels, as well as the technological aspects of the combustion plants; intervenes in the projects necessary for the programmation of the defensive measures for the land and for the waters on national basis; intervenes in the ruling and coordinating provisions referred to the pollution of chemical, physical, biological and sound emission nature; coordinates the Italian participation to the programs of environmental research defined by the European Community and by other international organizations; examines the projects of works of relevant environment impact in order to get an advance evaluation of their environmental compatibility. 93

110 These competences may directly influence both the industrial and generally the production activity, and the recognition and the utilization of novel findings in the field of the environmental protection, liable to be patented as industrial inventions. The Italian Group of AIPPI is very sensitive and interested to initiatives which, within the scope of the industrial property, may promote the solution of the problems connected both to the environment pollution of any type and to its prevention and more generally to the environmental protection. I. National legislation There are no present law provisions in Italy connecting the environment protection to the industrial property rights and there is no indication that people interested in either aspects are particularly awaken of the need or suitability of establishing a specific interconnection. More particularly in the Italian laws relating to the industrial property considered as a whole there are no specific provisions referred to patents having as their object the environment protection, even under the profile of limitations to the possibility of filing patent applications for inventions which might have a negative ecological impact. By the way the absence in Italy of the technical examination of the patent applications would be a relevant obstacle to the exploitation of provisions of this type, even if they existed. During the last 20 years the Italian Parliament has approved a number of specific laws aiming to fight and prevent the environment pollution, these laws being also accompanied by regulations issued by the local authorities, whereby study and research activities have been promoted and encouraged, both at the level of public research organizations and at that of the private industry, in the field of the specific technologies for the prevention and the struggle against the pollution. These studies and researches often have been followed by the applying for a patent protection, whereby in these years the number of patents relating to inventions of this type has been growing. The definite dichotomy between the circles interested in the industrial property and the governmental levels directly involved in the prevention and fight against the pollution and more generally in the environmental protection has to date hindered whatever initiative aimed at putting the environment protection on the same footing as problems like the national defence or the public health, for which specific provisions are included in the Italian laws, these provisions permitting even the espropriation to the prejudice of the inventor or of the patent owner. II. Conflicts between the patentability of an invention and environmental protection Even if in the treaties referred to in the working guidelines there is expressly foreseen the possibility that by law the inventions whose exploitation might be damaging for the en- 94

111 vironment could be excluded from the number of the patentable inventions, the Italian Group is of the opinion that it would be a mix up between questions of totally different nature. In this connection it is to be taken into account that seldom the patent specification indicates the existence of a potential risk for the environment and it would be very complicated, or even impossible, to find out what risks for the environment may be concealed within each invention. Alternatively the applicant might be forcedly asked to provide evidences under this specific point of view, which would raise a further obstacle to the patent granting and would require organizations and examination times untolerably extended, to the detriment of the industrial progress. The Italian law expressly states that the granting of a patent for whatever invention does not exonerate who is exploiting the invention from respecting the other regulations by which the exploitation of the invention is or may be regulated. Thus the Italian Group is of the opinion that the patentability of inventions potentially dangerous for the environment must be judged independently from that feature, but only as a function of the patentability requisites, while committing to the laws and regulations more specifically relating to the environment protection the control and the possible prohibition of exploitation of the inventions themselves. Consequently the Italian Group is of the opinion that the granting of a patent should never be considered per se as affecting the environment protection. III. Patents relating to the environment protection and a specific patent system The definition of "patents relating to the environment protection' must be very precise in order not to incur the risk of omnicomprehensive definitions within which at worst any type of invention might be included. If for environment protection there is meant the prevention, considered as the conversation of the environment in healthy or non polluted conditions, and the struggle against the pollution of whatever nature, the 'patents relating to the environment protection' are those and only those relating to inventions which have directly, specifically and definitely, as their object the two above stated arguments, thus excluding inventions in which the environment protection might be a side feature. If for example an invention relates to a process for the water depuration, it falls with full right within the above definition, whereas an invention directed to a chemical process relating to a general industrial production which, among the stated advantages, includes also a reduction of the pollution of the process waste waters in comparison with the known prior art, constitutes a limit case which in the strict sense is extraneous to the scope of this type of patents. 95

112 The Italian Group, although being conscious of the importance of the environment protection, does not believe that for the patents falling within the above definition a particular patent system or category should be instituted, as no particular category of patents exists for the inventions relating to the pharmaceuticals or the public health. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of patents In this connection some particular measures can be studied. The Italian law permits, as it is known, to act against an infringer even on the basis of the mere patent application, whereby an accelerated prosecution of the patent granting is of minor importance. Moreover, lacking the examination about the technical merits, provisions aiming at accelerating the examination of these patent applications in the framework of the Italian patent system would obviously be meaningless. However, for all the countries in which the examination on the technical merits exists and is rigorously and effectively carried out, it would be undoubtedly desirable, according to the opinion of the Italian Group, to have the examination carried out more quickly, taking it just into account that in almost all countries the action against an infringer can be started only after the patent grant. If this type of patent is taken into consideration only from the point of view of a title of industrial property, the Italian Group is of the opinion that the possibility of enjoying a reduction of fees should be foreseen only 35 an exception and over all as regards the annual fees for keeping the patent in force. Alternatively a rejuction of the annual fees can be assumed for the case in which the invention is exploited, possibly making the granting thereof subject to a simple declaration of the patent owner and providing heavy sanctions (lapsing of the patent or gratuitous license) in the case of false declaration. C) As regards the greater publicity to be given to patents of this type, the Italian Group is of the opinion that initiatives of this type are desirable, just with the aim of promoting their Knowledge among the interested circles. The granting of facilities, for example in terms of fee reduction, to the applicants or owners of this type of patents might be balanced or made dependent on a consistent shortening of the normal secrecy period of the patent applications. d) If this type of patents is subjected to the provisions regulating all inventions, no reason is seen for creating a special intermediate agency only for this type of patents. 96

113 Alternatively it might be useful to accompany the novel industrial findings, having importance in the field of the environmental protection, as being capable of producing a minor pollution or a reduced environment impact, with some form of public recognition issued from a supernational organization. This type of specific promotion should not have any relevance and/or interference with the patenting process and with the proceedings connected with the patenting; it would be on the contrary important afterwards, as an "award granted to the inventor in view of the public interest for an increasingly greater protection of the environment. Such an acknowledgement would be accompanied by proper forms of advertising and of public information, whereby the economical value of the patent would be certainly increased with better possibilities of exploitation. Within the same scope of regulating system it can be recalled the European Environmental Agency, set through the regulation n.1210/90 of the European Community Council of May 7, 1990, aiming at 'actuating an European network of information and observation in environmental matter". Likewise worth of notice is the "trademark of ecological quality" foreseen by the EC regulation n. 880/92 of March 23, Use rights of third parties The Italian Group does not agree with exceptional provisions directed to limit the rights deriving to the patentee from his invention and from the granting of the patent. According to the Italian law the exploitation of the inventions is compulsorily foreseen within relatively short terms after the granting of the related patent, whereby the lack of exploitation makes the invention available for interested third parties within certain limits. The Italian Group is of the opinion that also for patents of this type the subject regulations should be sufficient to assure the exploitation of the invention. If the know-how is considered a personal property of the inventor or of the patent owner, developed parallelly to the exploitation of the invention without being part thereof, it is the opinion of the Italian Group that an obligation to transfer the know-how might coexist only with a regular license contract. On the other side the specific know-how of an invention exists only if the invention undergoes a development and an exploitation, whereby it would be in contradiction with the granting of a compulsory license for lack of exploitation. 97

114 IV. International aspects of the question The Italian Group shares the opinion according to which the environmental protection is a problem of international interest and range. In this connection, thus, the Italian Group is of the opinion that a harmonization of the national laws should be envisaged, within the limits in which it is made possible by the peculiar aspects of the single national laws. Such a harmonization should be envisaged within the harmonization treaty being actually studied and discussed by WIPO. The Italian Group is contrary to whatever form of regulation through a separate convention, even being aware that the introduction of specific provisions in the harmonization treaty for the patent laws would involve further delays for the latter treaty. As regards the developing countries, the Italian Group is also aware of the fact that in these countries the lack of an environmental protection might have more serious consequences, since in these countries incidental problems, such as the raising of means of subsistence and the improvement of the life quality of the inhabitants, might lead the question of the environment protection to be overshadowed. On the other side the long run needed in each country to form and set an ecological conscience not seem at the present time admissible within a global and thus planetary view. For the Italian Group it is thus desirable that for the patents this type measures are studied in order to make it easier the transfer of the related technologies to those countries. The setting of international agencies having specific tasks, such as those operating within the U.N. area, would not be in principle objected by the Italian Group. Summary National laws in Italy don't foresee any special provision for inventions relating to environmental protection and for their patenting, although an Environment Ministry has been created since Locking any examination on the technical merits, the granting of these patents follows the normal path and moreover, like any other patent, their enforcement can be already started on the basis of the patent application. 98

115 The Italian Group of AIPPI is of the opinion that inventions possibly alfeeting the environment should not be dealt with, as regards their exploitation, under the point of view of their patentability but under the control of different laws and other government agencies. Likewise the Italian Group is of the opinion that for the patents for inventions connected to the environment protection no special patent systems or category should be envisaged, although their examination in the countries in which an examination is effected should be possibly accelerated. Furthermore provisions might be studied for promoting their exploitation, such as a reduction of the fees for their keeping in force, as well as their knowledge by the public and particularly by private and public organisations possibly interested thereto. 99

116 Japon Japan Japan Report Q 128 by the Japanese Group Patents and protection of the environment In reply to the Guidelines for Question 128, the Japanese Group would like to report and express its opinions in the following. I. State of the nationals rules In the guidelines, the Groups are asked to set out the situation in regard to legislation, rules, doctrine and case law on the Question. Any particular problems raised in connection with patents and environmental protection? The Japanese Group finds no particular problems concerning intellectual properties in relation to the protection of the environment under discussions in Japan. A large number of patent applications broadly related to environmental protection exist. However, none of the major intellectual property organizations in Japan are apparently addressing issues related to patents and environmental protection. Are there specific provisions? No specific provisions are found in Japanese law and related regulations to limit the possibility of filing patent applications for inventions which are likely to negatively affect the environment. However, if an invention violates the public order and morality, and is detrimental to public health, a patent application for such an invention will be rejected according to the Patent Law. In Japan, no provisions specific to patents concerning environmental protection exist. Is the number of environment-related patent applications rising? Since 1971, patent applications related to the prevention of environmental pollution are published for opposition purposes with a special symbol (so-called 'Maruko" marks). In 1976, about 2,700 applications were published with such a mark, and in 1989 the number was about 1,

117 4. Are there provisions for compulsory licenses on patents concerning environmental protection? The Japanese patent law contains provisions for compulsory licenses, but those provisions are apparently unrelated to environmental protection per se. If a compulsory license is necessary for the sake of public interests, it can be requested by a third party and be granted by the Japanese Patent Office (Section 93 of the patent law). However, no compulsory licenses have ever been granted before in Japan on any grounds. II. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? In Japan, similar questions were discussed some 19 years ago at a committee formed within the Diet. The following points should be noted form the discussions. Patents will not be granted on inventions which are likely to be detrimental to the public order and morality, and harmful to public health (Section 32 of the patent law). If it is known that an invention involves some toxic effects when it is carried out as disclosed in the specification, such an invention cannot be protected under a patent according to Section 32 mentioned above. If the public health is unavoidably harmed when an invention is practiced, such an invention cannot also be patented under Section 32. If the harm to public health is only a possibility and some technological development provides a recourse to the problem associated with the invention, it does not fall under Section 32 and may be patented. Basically, the Japanese Group believes that the concept of public order, morality and public health should not be broadened to exclude more inventions from patent protection. Further, inventions other than those clearly excluded from protection as being against the public health, or public order and morality should be protected under patents. The reason for this is that it is generally difficult to prove or foresee how harmful an invention will or can be against the environment at the time of granting a patent. Whether patents are granted or not granted, such fact does not seem to promote or negatively affect the protection of the environment by itself. Therefore, it is felt that environmental protection should be dealt with under laws other than patent law. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? 1. Provisions for promoting the examination and granting of such patents: a) Should patents related to environmental protection be examined more quickly? 101

118 Currently, patent applications are examined in the order of request for substantive examination in Japan. If the applicant requests it under certain circumstances, an application may jump the queue in which it is waiting to be examined (under so-called Preferential or Accelerated Examination). The Japanese Group believes that patents should be granted as soon as possible in order to encourage and protect venture businesses in the field of environmental protection. Should they enjoy reduced fees? While there are provisions for official fee reduction in the Japanese patent law, no special mention is made as to environmental protection. Also, fees can be reduced for ist to 3rd year annuities and for requesting substantive examination only. The Japanese Group has some doubts about the effectiveness of official fee reductions because they tend to represent a relatively minor portion of overall costs of R & D and patent filing and prosecution, although such fee reductions may have a symbolic effect. Is particular publication necessary to make the interested public aware of environment-related applications quickly and effective? Starting in 1944, the Japanese Patent Office is now placing an identifying mark of ZAB in publications of unexamined applications related to technology concerned with environmental protection to alert the public. Consequently, searches for applications related to environmental protection should become easier with such marks. Are national agencies necessary for encouraging licensing? The Japanese Group generally does not believe that such an agency is necessary. However, some in the Group indicated that possibilities should be studied for the establishment of such agencies, national or international. 2. Rights of third parties: a) Rights to use environment-related patents: As discussed above, Japan has provisions for compulsory licenses. However, it is generally felt that the private sector does not wish to have additional governmental intervention beyond the level they currently have. The Japanese Group also believes that if the strength of patents is weakened by way of compulsory licenses or rights to use patents, it would not help innovations in the field of environmental protection and would probably have a negative overall effect. 102

119 b) Obligation to disclose certain know-how to a third party: The Japanese Group is against placing anyone under obligation to disclose know-how for effective exploitation of any invention for more or less the same reasons as stated above. IV. International aspects of the Question: The Japanese Group does not believe that harmonization of patent laws with respect to environmental protection in particular is necessary either within the existing or proposed conventions, such as the Paris Convention and the Patent Law Treaty, or within a framework of new conventions. Laws and treaties generally directed to the protection of the environment would be a better forum. No matter how we modify the existing patent systems or tailor new conventions solely related to patents for the purpose of environment protection, it is felt that no meaningful results are likely to be attained. Also, as to a system for permitting developing countries to have fast access to environmental technology now-how, the Japanese Group does not believe that it is necessary. Such propagation of technology can be done more effectively within, say, packages of technological and financial aid to developing countries. As to patent pooling, some in the Japanese Group feel that an international organization for patent pooling would not function at all as intended, while some others believe that the establishment of such an international organization is a possibility. Conclusion Generally, the Japanese Group disfavour weakened patent protection and more governmental intervention concerning patent in connection with the protection of the environment. If patent protection is weakened by compulsory licenses or other measures, the end result will be a decline in innovations. This is certainly not desirable for environmental protection because as a matter of reality, every national economy is motivated to expand and useful technologies are strongly desired to prevent spreading pollution and environmental destruction. Innovations in the field of environmental protection should be promoted by way of forceful patent protection. Furthermore, probably patents are not the key issue for the protection of the environment. The question of patents and environmental protection should be approached not simply from the perspective of patents alone, but in connection with other social and policy considerations, such as economic and tax incentives and overall policies for environmental protection. 103

120 Mexique Mexico Mexiko Report Q 128 in the name of the Mexican Group by Aifredo RANGEL Patents and protection of the environment I. State of the national rules Are there in Mexico particular problems which are raised nowadays by protection for the environment, in relation to industrial property rights? There are no specific problems raised by protection for the environment in relation to industrial property rights; however, the General Law on Ecologic Balance and the Protection of the Environment (published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on January 28, 1988) as well as a number of regulations and decrees related therewith establish several provisions regarding the protection of the environment which could render the regulation and/or prohibition to use or exploit industrial property rights, mainly in the field of patents. Are the circles concerned aware of this problem? No until the problem arises. Are there specific provisions concerning the question: - limit on the possibility of filing applications for patents when the inventions covered by the patents would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment; and particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment? The only provision in the Mexican Law on Industrial Property concerning this question is contained in Article 4 which establishes that no patent, registration or authorization shall be granted when the contents of the invention are contrary to public order or against any legal provision. To this end, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property could deny the granting of a patent if the invention contravened the General Law on Ecologic Balance and the Protection of the Environment or the regulations and decrees or any other law related therewith. 104

121 Furthermore, Article 1709 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which forms a part of the law in Mexico, provides that A Party may exclude from patentability inventions if preventing in its territory the commercial exploitation of the inventions is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant live or health or to avoid serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that the exclusion is not based on the ground that the Party prohibits commercial exploitation in its territory of the subject matter of the patent'. Is the number of patents involved with environmental protection currently increasing in Mexico? There are no official statistics about patents related with environmental protection; however, it may be safe to say that, if the international trend regarding this protection has increased, then such an increase will also be reflected in this country. Are there provisions which permit a compulsory license on a patent concerning environmental protection, such as the compulsory licenses to be found in some countries in the interests of national defence, public health or the national economy? The Mexican Law on Industrial Property establishes that, in the case of inventions (irrespective of their being related with environmental protection), after three years from the date of grant of the patent, or four years from the filing date of the application, whichever is later, any person may apply to the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property for the grant of a compulsory license to exploit the invention when working of the invention has not been carried out, unless there exist duly justified reasons for such a non working, being understood that the importation of the patented product or the product obtained by the patented process is considered as an effective exploitation of the invention on the part of the holder of the patent. Likewise, the Law on Industrial Property provides that, due to reasons of emergency or national security, and only during the time on which such situations or cases subsist, the Institute will determine that certain patents may be exploited through the grant of public utility licenses, in cases where, were it otherwise, the production, supply or distribution of basic commodities for the people would be impeded, rendered more difficult or expensive. ii. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? Should a distinction not be made here between: the exploitation of an invention which may be found harmful and which would therefore have to be prohibited; and patentability of such an invention? is the grant of a patent in itself of such a nature as to affect environmental protection? 105

122 Whether or not an invention may be found harmful to the environment, the inventor or his assignees would still have the constitutional right to obtain a patent for such an invention, as long as the patentability requirements are met. If the granting of the patent and the exclusive right granted therewith in itself rendered the possibility to exploit the invention without any further authorization and without regard to the regulations concerning environmental protection, then the refusal to grant the patent would be justified; however, since a number of legal provisions and regulations must be met and satisfied before being able to use an invention presumed or found to be harmful, then the granting of the patent in itself would not affect environmental protection. If an invention found to be harmful to the environment at a given time is found to be safe at a further time within the term of the patent, the prohibition to grant the patent for such an invention would be found unconstitutional upon the occurrence of the latter event. Authorities have the means to prohibit the use of patented inventions if same are found to be harmful to the environment and still comply with their obligation to grant patents for such inventions. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? As defined by AIPPI, patents relating to environmental protection are those whose very object is directly to provide environmental protection as well as those related to inventions which, without having the direct object of improving environmental protection, achieve this end by preventing or reducing adverse effects on nature and causes of harm. Because of the importance of environmental protection, which involves the whole of society, should there not be a particular system for patents relating to inventions which enhance environmental protection? Perhaps there should not be a particular system for these patents but rather the same system for all patents with particular provisions relating to inventions enhancing environmental protection. This, due to the fact that in some instances it could not be determined from the outset if the invention at hand would be one whose very object would be directly to provide environmental protection or one which, without having the direct object of improving environmental protection would achieve this end and could be excluded from such a particular system. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents: The following rules could be established for these inventions: a) patents relating to environmental protection technologies should be examined more quickly, for instances, upon the fulfilment of all administrative requirements; 106

123 b) since the benefits of these inventions involve the whole or a substantial part of society, the corresponding applications should enjoy reduced fees, e.g. the same fees applied to independent inventors; C) Ifl the case of Mexico, an early publication of patent applications may be requested upon the payment of additional fees. In the case of these inventions the applications should be published upon the fulfilment of all administrative requirements without the need of payment of such additional fees, which publications should be the subject of a particular notice to the interested public so that they are quickly and effectively brought to their knowledge; it would be possible and advisable to set up national agencies or have existing ones to carefully follow the grant of such patents and which would get into contact with the undertakings which are most likely to carry such techniques into effect so as to promote the conclusion of an agreement with the patentee; it would also be advisable to grant tax benefits and financial aids to inventors and corporations dedicating time and efforts for research and development of environmental protection technologies. 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection: Although environmental protection is very important to the whole of society, third parties should not, as a rule, be granted a right to use patents covering inventions relating to the environment. The above, due to the fact that the lack of the exclusive rights granted by a patent would render a lack of interest in the research and development of these technologies; however, if such patents are not exploited within a given period after the granting of the patent or if such an exploitation does not satisfy the demand or if the demand is satisfied but the patented product or the product obtained through the patented process proves to be rather expensive as regards the real manufacturing and commercialization costs, then a compulsory license could be imposed on such patents. Even if the parties do arrive to an amicable agreement, if the price of the product is rather expensive as mentioned above, the right of third parties should be established by a compulsory license in order for the whole of society to benefit from environmental protection patented technologies. Should the need arise to grant compulsory licenses, the owner of know-how in the matter should have the obligation to communicate it to third parties to ensure effective exploitation of the invention; otherwise, the compulsory license would be useless. 107

124 IV. International aspects of the Question There is indeed no doubt that environment problems go beyond just national territory; therefore, we should envisage providing for harmonisation of patent laws relating to environmental protection either in the draft for harmonisation of patent law being discussed by WIPO or in the Paris Convention or both. As long as intellectual property rights are secured and protected for their rightful owners, there should be a particular system for the developing countries to permit them to have fast access to the know-how with regard to technology relating to environmental protection. Since patent protection is territorial in scope it would be rather difficult to envisage the establishment of an international organisation which would acquire rights in respect of patents (Patent Pool) and which would transfer such rights to third parties in the form of a licence. If it were possible to establish such an international organisation, would it acquire the rights in respect of patents as a licensee with the right to grant sublicenses? Would it not be difficult to establish the particulars of each licence and sublicense agreement with each patentee? Would it not be difficult to keep a record of the patents granted in each country and the countries where patent protection was not sought where the invention would be in the public domain? Would it not take longer for the patentee to receive the corresponding royalty payments arising either from a regular license or a compulsory license? Would it not be rather expensive to record each license and sublicense agreement, in the case of countries where patent license (and sublicense) agreements must be recorded with the Patent Office? Would it not be more expensive the payment of royalties for the final licensee in order to indirectly cover the administrative and operational expenses of such an international organisation? Would all licenses directly requested to the patentee had to be referred to the international organisation reducing the rights of the patentee as well as his negotiation and commercial opportunities? Would it not be difficult and time consuming for the organisation to decide or request instructions on specific proposals of would-be licensees or sublicensees not contemplated in the particulars originally set forth by the patentee? Due to these and many other questions it would be rather difficult to envisage the possibility of establishing such an international organisation. Summary There are no specific problems raised by protection for the environment in relation to industrial property rights; however, it would be possible that such problems would arise in terms of specific laws directed towards the protection of the environment, problems which the circles concerned are not aware of until the problem arises. The Mexican Institute of 108

125 Industrial Property is empowered to deny the granting of a patent should the invention contravened any environmental regulation. Should a patent related with environmental protection not be exploited within the three year term following the granting thereof, it would be possible for a third party to obtain a compulsory licence. Furthermore, in case of emergency or national security, public utility licences would apply. Since a number of legal provisions and regulations must be met and satisfied before being able to use an invention presumed to be harmful, the granting of a patent for such an invention does not affect environmental protection. There should not be a particular system for these patents but rather the same system for all patents with particular provisions relating to inventions enhancing environmental protection. Patents relating to environmental protection should be exaimend and published upon the fulfilment of all administrative requirements; considering the importance of this inventions, the same reduced fees for independent inventors should apply to these patents as well as other tax benefits. In order to avoid lack of interest in the research and development of these inventions, third parties should not, as a rule, be granted a right to use the patents thereof. There are a number of issues rendering rather difficult to envisage the possibility of establishing an international organisation acquiring and transferring these patent rights to third parties. Résumé Les Lois visant à la protection de l'environnement n'interfèrent pas particulièrement dans le domaine des droits de propriété industrielle; dans la pratique il peut toutefois arriver que des Lois et règlements spécifiques engendrent certaines difficultés. L'institut Mexicain de la Propriété Industrielle a la faculté de refuser l'octroi d'un brevet si l'invention va à l'encontre d'une réglementation écologique. Si un brevet relatif à la protection de l'environnement n'a pas été utilisé pendant les trois années suivant son obtention, un tiers pourra obtenir une licence forcée. D'autre part en cas de situation d'urgence ou de sécurité nationale, des autorisations d'utilité publique pourront être délivrées. Puisque un certain nombre de formalités légales doivent être accomplies afin de pouvoir utiliser une invention qui est susceptible de nuire à l'environnement, l'octroi d'un brevet d'invention de ce type ne porte pas atteinte à la protection de l'environnement. Il ne devrait pas exister de système particulier pour ces brevets mais plutôt une même procédure pour tous les brevets avec des dispositions particulières pour les inventions qui mettent en péril la protection de l'environnement. Les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement devraient être examinés et publiés après l'accomplissement de toutes les formalités administratives. Considérant l'importance de ce type d'inventions, des déductions fiscales ainsi que les réductions applicables aux inventeurs indépendants devraient leurs être octroyées. 109

126 Afin d'éviter une perte d'intérêt dans la recherche et le développement de ce type d'invention, les tiers ne devraient jamais obtenir le droit d'utiliser ces brevets, On peut difficilement envisager la possible création d'une organisation internationale qui acquerrera et transferrera les droits relatifs à ces brevets à des tiers. Zusammenfassung Es erheben sich keine besonderen Probleme durch den Umweltschutz im Zusammenhang mit Patentrechten; solche Probleme könnten möglicherweise entstehen im Falle von Sondergesetzen hinsichtlich des Umweltschutzes und den Betroffenen erst bewusst werden, wenn diese Probleme sich tatsächlich zeigen. Das Mexikanische Institut für Patentrechte ist ermächtigt, die Gewährung des Patentschutzes zu verweigern, wenn die angemeldete Erfindung Umweitschutzbestimmungen zuwiderläuft. Wird ein Patentrecht zum Umweltschutz innerhalb der auf seine Gewährung folgenden drei Jahre nicht genutzt, so kann einem Dritten eine Zwangslizenz erteilt werden. Zusätzlich würden im Katastrophenfall oder im Falle der Gefährdung der öffentlichen Sicherheit kommunale Rechte zur Anwendung kommen. Da eine Vielzahl von gesetzlichen Bestimmungen und Vorschriften eingehalten werden muss, bevor eine als schädlich eingestufte Erfindung genutzt werden kann, hat die Gewährung des Patentschutzes für solche Erfindungen keine Auswirkung auf den Umweltschutz. Daher sollte für solche Patente kein Sondersystem zur Anwendung kommen, vielmehr sollte dasselbe System für alle Patente gelten unter Einschluss besonderer Bedingungen für Erfindungen, die den Umweltschutz fördern. Alle Patente im Zusammenhang mit dem Umweltschutz sollten geprüft und nach Erfüllung aller administrativen Forderungen veröffentlicht werden; im Hinblick auf die Wichtigkeit dieser Erfindungen sollten dafür ebenfalls die ermässigten Gebührensätze wie für unabhängige Erfinder sowie sonstige Steuervorteile gelten. Damit das Interesse an der Forschung und Entwicklung solcher Erfindungen nicht verlorengeht, sollte Dritten, im Regelfall, keine Nutzungsrechte daraus erteilt werden. Aufgrund verschiedener Ueberlegungen fällt es schwer, an die Möglichkeit der Gründung einer internationalen Organisation zu denken, die solche Patentrechte erwirbt und an Dritte überträgt. 110

127 Norvège Norway Norwegen Report Q 128 in the name of the Norwegian Group by Rolf DIETRICHSON, Toril FOSS, Karl O. HANSSEN, Leif HAUGEN and Bernt KROGH Patents and protection of the environment I. State of the national rules In Norway there haven't been any particular problems concerning protection of the environment in relation to industrial property rights. There are no limitations to the possibility of filing applications for patents when the inventions covered by the patents are likely to affect the environment. We have no registration concerning such patents. The Norwegian Patent Act permit compulsory licence. Compulsory licensing is not restricted to neither national defence, public health nor national economy, and can be used on patents concerning environmental protection. li. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? The grant of a patent can not in itself affect environmental protection. We find that the protection if the environment should not be of any concern in the patent legislation. In the case where the exploitation of a patentable invention will harm the environment it should be regulated by other legislation than the Patents Act. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? We find that there is no reason to treat patent applications differently either they concern the one or the other in regard to environmental protection. 111

128 The Norwegian Patents Act accept the principle of compulsory licence. Third parties can under certain circumstances be granted a compulsory licence. Such a licence can be granted if necessary to protect the environment. The group thinks that environmental protection should be taken care of elsewhere than in patent legislation. 112

129 Pays-Bas Netherlands Niederlande Report Q 128 in the name of the Dutch Group by E.J. DOMMERING, J.H. KAN, W.C.R. HOOGSTRATEN, J. NICAISE and H.W. RAVEN (rapporteur) Patents and protection of the environment Introduction On face-value, patents and protection of the environment" would seem to be unrelated subjects. Patent law is providing a system for the protection of technical inventions. In order to qualify for such protection, such inventions are tested on novelty, inventive character and functionality. There are some secondary considerations, such as sufficient disclosure etc., but the intrinsic nature of the invention and/or its social or moral implications are irrelevant. Truly, there are some excluded fields, such as medical treatment. But these fields are exceptional. As the area, for which patents are available, is hardly defined (industry, including agriculture, Art. 3(1) Dutch Patent Act), these exclusions rather serve as a further delineation of that area than as a true restriction. More or less the same principle applies to the general provision prohibiting patents on inventions contrary to "ordre public" or morality. lt is a safety valve for exceptional, obvious cases, not a guiding principle in determining whether an invention should quality for patent protection. So far, the general rule has been that the intrinsic nature of inventions or the social or moral implications of inventions are irrelevant for their protection by patents. Lately, however, this basic principle of patent law seems to have come under debate. There is discussion about considerable extension of excluded fields. It is suggested that e.g. patents on plants, animals and material of human origin should be rendered impossible. Alternatively, it is suggested that patentability of biotechnological inventions should be tested against "ordre public and morality, in which the positive outcome of such test should be conditional for the validity of any patent to be granted on such invention. 113

130 A related development is the introduction of the principle that compulsory licences to holders of dependent patents should be restricted to cases where the dependent patent is for an invention providing substantial technological progress'. All such developments call for consideration of the intrinsic nature of inventions and/or social or moral implications of such inventions by patent examination boards and civil courts which are hardly equipped for such task. lt is submitted that these developments tend to introduce an element which is foreign to patent law and detrimental for its reliability. The introduction of environmental protection as an element potentially influencing the function of patent law, is a further extension of the line of development identified hereinabove. Recently, protection of the environment (i.e. developing acceptable standards for "clean" air, water and soil, and, in connection herewith, standards for effluents, for waste disposal, for chemical compounds in general, thermal pollution, noise etc., and applying technology for maintaining such standards, restricting or checking conditions damaging to the environment, restoring and improving environmental conditions etc.) has emerged as an important field of government responsibility at all levels of government (national, provincial and communal). Closely related fields are safety and protection of workers, regulation of building and construction, town- and country-planning, conservation of ecosystems and habitats, protection of endangered species etc. These fields are so interrelated that, in actual fact, it is very hard to give a sharp definition of the area of governmental responsibility, denominated as 'environmental protection'. Elements of environmental protection are clearly embedded in many areas of governmental activity. Whatever the case may be, environmental protection as a function of government, is carried by a substantial body of administrative law. Like all substantive administrative law, its common denominator is its function to induce certain patterns of behaviour, encouraging behaviour by offering incentives (subsidies, taxreductions), discouraging behaviour by e.g. fines, penalties and taxes. Undeniably, for private persons, the imposed behaviour may bring about limitations in liberties and/or rights which, otherwise, might have been available to them. Patents are private rights, though private rights with a negative load: Patents do not positively induce behaviour, but rather prevent or prohibit certain behaviour. Patents create favourable conditions for the development of technology. Technology may be instrumental in improving the environment, but other technology may be detrimental to the environment. In this respect, there is no direct connection, - if any connection at all! -, between the existence of a patent system and its effects on the environment. Patents do not induce behaviour, which is either favourable or detrimental to the environment. There is only one interface between the patent system and protection of the environment, i.e. where patent rights preclude or hamper the accessibility of resources or the availability of essential technology for the protection of the environment. 114

131 lt should be borne in mind, that the exclusive positions created by patents are always limited in time, are frequently minimized and restricted by competing technology and that the patent system is an essential precondition for creating new technology. Consequently, ft should not be assumed too soon that patents monopolizing resources or essential environmental technology should be contrary to sound policies of environmental protection. Again: patents and environmental protection are almost unrelated subjects. Only in most exceptional cases it is conceivable that the interests of private patentees, monopolizing resources or essential technology, would be contrary to the public interest in accessibility of such resources or technology. lt is submitted therefore, that the discussions of this subject in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, 1992, were fairly theoretical. As a rule, natural resources are free and freely accessible. Patents only protect inventions, i.e. technical results which would not have been there at all without the creative action of the inventor. And which probably would not have been there without the possibility for the inventor to protect his invention by patent. lt is hard to see, how such a new and unprecedented technical solution could raise a conflict with environmental protection. Nevertheless, such a conflict between environmental protection and industrial property rights has been considered lately in various instruments of international law. Article 16 of the Biodiversity Treaty is providing that member states shall take appropriate legislative, administrative or policy measures to prevent that the accessibility of technologies relevant to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is prohibited or hampered by patents and other intellectual property rights. The nature of such appropriate measures" is not specified in the Treaty. NAFTA (Art. 1709) and GATI/TRIPs (Art. 27(2)) provide for the possibility for member states to exclude inventions from being patentable if it seems necessary to prevent commercial exploitation thereof, to protect "ordre public' or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health, or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment. In connection herewith GATT/TRIPs Art. 31 would seem to have an indirect bearing on the matter in spelling out standards for compulsory licences "where the law of a member state allows for other use of the subject matter of the patent without the authorization of the right holder. Summarizing: the question of a possible conflict between environmental protection and industrial property rights (more particularly patents) has only recently arisen and is being dealt with in the Biodiversity Treaty 1992, NAFTA and GATT/TRIPs. Biodiversity Treaty is setting forth the general principle that member states shall take adequate measures to prevent private rights of industrial property blocking the accessibility of relevant technology, but is not specific about such adequate measures. NAFTA and GATI/TRIP5 are specific about excluding patentability in such cases. Moreover, GAlT/TRIPs specifically point at 115

132 compulsory licences in countries where such licences do exist under the national law system. The common denominator of exclusion of patentability and advancing compulsory licences is that the availability of patent protection to the inventor is drastically reduced, in a generic way in the former case, and in a specific way in the latter case. Apparently this reduction is motivated by either one of two factors: by prohibiting patentabiuty it is sometimes believed that the pertaining industrial activity can be reduced or terminated. On the other hand, both prohibiting patentability and advancing compulsory licensing is believed to be an effective instrument for providing free accessibility to relevant technologies and resources. We should examine now, to what extent these two instruments are available or should be available in our own national law system. I. State of the national rules Q: Are there particular problems in the Netherlands which are raised nowadays by protection for the environment, in relation to industrial property rights? Are the circles concerned aware of this problem? A: The current patent system in the Netherlands is determined by the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the Dutch Patent Act (DPA). As per 1995 the introduction of a New Patent Act (N PA) is expected, but the new Act will not materially change the situation relevant for this question. Both EPC (Art. 53a) and DPA (Art. 5) and NPA (Art. 3a) contain the general prohibition of patentability for inventions contrary to 'ordre public' or morality. Moreover, DPA (Art. 34) and NPA (Art. 57/58) contain provisions for compulsory licensing, among which, specifically, the compulsory licences which can be imposed by the Minister of Economic Affairs on grounds of public interests. Consequently, the instruments indicated in the international treaties for managing the interface between necessary policies of environmental protection and possibly impeding private patent rights are all available in the Dutch national law. Particular problems in this respect are not anticipated. Q: Are there specific provisions concerning the question: limit on the possibility of filing applications for patents when the inventions covered by the patents would be deemed to be likely to affect the environment; and particular provisions for patents concerning protection of the environment? A: No. 116

133 Q: Is the number of patents involved with environmental protection currently increasing in the Netherlands? A: Specific figures are not available but as environmental technology is rapidly expanding, it may be assumed that the number of pertaining patent applications will follow suit. Q: Are there provisions which permit a compulsory licence on a patent concerning environmental protection, such as the compulsory licences to be found in some countries in the interests of national defence, public health or the national economy? A: Specific legal provisions do not exist but the existing provisions for compulsory licences in the public interest ofter an adequate formal ground for compulsory licensing on patents concerning environmental protection. In the international treaties and scientific literature environmental protection is frequently mentioned as an example of necessary public policy. Most certainly, this interpretation is shared by the Dutch authorities. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? Q: Should a distinction not be made here between: the exploitation of an invention which may be found to be harmful and which would therefore have to be prohibited; and patentability of such an invention? A: Yes, certainly! Patent law as such is not designed for regulating environmental protection and is an unsuitable instrument for it. Environmental protection should be only regulated by substantive administrative law. Q: Is the grant of a patent in itself of such a nature as to affect environmental protection? A: No. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents 117

134 A: A particular system for patents concerning environmental protection is not recommended. 2. Rights of third parties to use patents relating to environmental protection A: Again a special system is not recommended. The Dutch legal provisions concerning compulsory licence in the public interest should be deemed adequate. IV. International aspects of the Question A: Over and above the existing initiatives for harmonisation of patent law and the principles established in the Biodiversity Treaty, there is no need for further international legislation specifically pertaining to patents affecting environmental protection and accessibility of technology. Résumé Introduction La valeur vénale, les brevets et la protection de l'environnement pourraient sembler être des sujets sans relation mutuelle. Le droit des brevets a crée un système pour la protection des inventions techniques. Pour pouvoir profiter de cette protection, les inventions sont vérifiées quant à leur nouveauté, leur caractère inventif et leur caractère fonctionnel. li existe certaines considérations secondaires telles que description suffisante, etc., mais la nature intrinsèque de l'invention et/ou ses implications sociales ou moral ne sont pas prises en considération. li est vrai que certains domaines sont exclus, tels que les traitement médicaux. Mais ces domaines sont exceptionnels. Comme le domaine pour lequel des brevets sont disponibles est mal défini (industrie, y compris agriculture", article 3(1), lois néerlandaise sur les brevets), ces exclusions servent plutôt à définir davantage ce domaine plutôt qu'à constituer une véritable restriction. Le même principe s'applique plus ou moins à la disposition générale interdisant les brevets sur les inventions contraires à l'ordre public ou à la moralité, Il s'agit d'une soupape de sûreté pour des cas exceptionnels mais évidents et non un principe directeur pour déterminer si une invention doit mériter une protection par brevet. Jusqu'à présent, on a considéré de manière générale que la nature intrinsèque des inventions où les implications sociales ou morales de celles-ci ne sont pas prises en considération pour leur protection par brevet. 118

135 Ultérieurement cependant, ce principe de base du droit des brevets est apparu comme étant susceptible de discussion. Un point discuté concerne l'extension considérable des domaines exclus. On a suggéré, par exemple, que les brevets concernant les plantes, les animaux et les matériaux d'origine humaine devraient être rendus impossibles. En variante, on a suggéré que la brevetabilité des inventions biotechnologiques devrait être contrôlée du point de vue de 'l'ordre public' et de la moralité, étant entendu qu'une conclusion favorable de cette vérification devrait être une condition pour rendre valide tout brevet accordé à une invention de ce genre. Un développement corrélatif est l'introduction du principe que des licences obligatoires aux détenteurs de brevets dépendants devraient être restreintes au cas où le brevet dépendant concerne une invention assurant "un progrès technologique notable. Tous ces développements nécessitent la prise en considération de la nature intrinsèque des inventions et/ou des implications sociales ou morales de ces inventions par les bureaux d'examen des brevets et les tribunaux civils, qui sont peu qualifiés pour un tel travail. On a fait remarquer que ces développements ont tendance à introduire un élément étranger au droit des brevets et nuisible à la fiabilité de celle-ci. L'introduction de la protection de l'environnement comme étant un élément pouvant influencer en principe le fonctionnement du droit des brevets constitue une extension supplémentaire dans la ligne du développement caractérisée ci-dessus. Plus récemment, la protection de l'environnement (c'est-à-dire la mise au point de normes acceptables pour l'air, l'eau et le sol propres" et, en rapport avec celle-ci, de normes pour les effluents, l'élimination des déchets, les composés chimiques en général, la pollution thermique, le bruit, etc. et l'application de technologies pour maintenir ces normes, restreindre ou limiter les conditions nuisibles a l'environnement, rétablir et améliorer l'état de l'environnement, etc.) s'est développée au point de former un secteur important de la responsabilité de l'autorité public à tous les niveaux de celle-ci (national, provincial et communal). Des domaines en rapport étroit avec celui-ci sont la sécurité et la protection des travailleurs, les réglementations sur les bâtiments et la construction, l'aménagement du territoire en zones urbaines et rurales, la conservation des écosystèmes et des habitats, la protection des espèces en danger, etc. Ces domaines présentent de telles relations mutuelles que, en réalité, il est très difficile de présenter une définition nette du domaine des responsabilités de l'autorité publique que l'on appellerait "protection de l'environnement". Des éléments de protection de l'environnement sont déjà nettement présents dans de nombreux secteurs de l'activité des autorités. Quel que puisse être le cas, la protection de l'environnement en tant que fonction publique est réalisée par un appareil important de législation administrative. Tout comme toute législation administrative concrète, son dénominateur commun est de fonctionner afin d'induire certains types de comportements, c'est-à-dire d'encourager un comportement en offrant des avantages (subsides, réduction de taxes), en décourageant des comporte- 119

136 ments, par exemple, au moyen d'amendes, de pénalités et de taxes. Il est indéniable que le comportement impose peut donner lieu à certaines limitations des libertés et/ou des droits des personnes privées, alors qu'elles auraient pu continuer à en profiter autrement. Les brevets sons des droits privés, quoiqu'il s'agisse de droits privés ayant un fonction négatif: les brevets ne provoquent pas positivement un comportement mais empêchent ou interdisent plutôt un certain comportement. Les brevets créent des conditions favorables pour le développement de la technologie. La technologie peut être un instrument d'amélioration dans l'environnement, mais une autre technologie peut nuire à l'environnement. A ce point de vue, il n'existe aucune relation directe, voir même aucune relation dus tout, entre l'existence d'un système de brevets et ses effets sur l'environnement. Les brevet n'incitent pas à pratiquer un comportement favorable ou défavorable à l'environnement. Il existe seulement une interface entre le système des brevets et la protection de l'environnement: c'est le cas où les droits découlant des brevets empêchent ou entravent l'accessibilité aux ressources ou la disponibilité d'une technologie essentielle pour la protection de l'environnement. Il convient de se rappeler que les positions d'exclusivité créées par les brevets sont toujours limitées dans le temps et, fréquemment, minimisées et restreintes par la concurrence technique et que le système des brevets constitue une condition préliminaire essentielle pour la création d'une nouvelle technologie. Par conséquent, il ne faut pas affirmer trop rapidement que des brevets monopolisant des ressources ou une technologie essentielle pour l'environnement sont nécessairement contraires à une saine politique de protection de l'environnement. Une fois encore, les brevets et la protection de l'environnement constituent des sujets pratiquement sans aucune relation mutuelle. Ce n'est que dans des cas assez exceptionnels que l'on pourrait concevoir que les intérêts de brevetés privés monopolisant des ressources ou une technologie essentielle agiraient contrairement à l'intérêt public pour ce qui concerne l'accessibilité à ces ressources ou à cette technologie. Il convient de remarquer à ce sujet que les discussion qui y ont été consacrées à la Conférence des Nations Unies sur l'environnement et le Développement, tenue a Rio de Janeiro en 1992, ont été assez théoriques. D'une manière générale, les ressources naturelles sont libres et librement accessibles. Les brevets protègent uniquement des inventions, c'est-à-dire des résultats techniques qui n'auraient pas existé du tout en l'absence de l'action créatrice de l'inventeur. Qui n'auraient d'ailleurs probablement jamais existé s'il n'y avait pas eu la possibilité pour l'inventeur de protéger son invention par brevet, Il est difficile d'imaginer qu'une telle solution technique nouvelle et originale pourrait donner lieu à un conflit avec la protection de l'environnement. Néanmoins, un tel conflit entre la protection de l'environnement et les droits de propriété industrielle a été envisagé récemment dans différents instruments de la législation internationale. 120

137 L'article 16 du Traité de la Biodiversité prévoit que les Etatsmembres prendront des mesures appropriées d'ordre législatif, administratif ou politique pour empêcher que l'accessibilité aux technologies en rapport avec la conservation et l'utilisation soutenable de la diversité biologique soit interdite ou entravée par des brevets ou d'autres droits de propriété intellectuelle. La nature de ces "mesures appropriées" n'est pas spécifiée dans le traité. Le NAFTA (Art. 1709) et la GAIT/TRIPs (Art. 27(2)) prévoient la possibilité pour les Etats-membres d'exclure des inventions du domaine brevetable s'il semble nécessaire d'empêcher l'exploitation industrielle de celles-ci afin de protéger l'ordre public ou la moralité, y compris la protection de la vie humaine, animale ou végétale ou la santé, ou encore pour éviter un préjudice grave pour l'environnement. En rapport avec ce sujet, le GAIT/TRIPs, art. 31, semble avoir touché indirectement à ce sujet en définissant des normes pour les licences obligatoires "lorsque la loi d'un Etat-membre permet une autre utilisation de la matière sujette au brevet sans l'autorisation de détenteur des droits". En résumé, la question d'un conflit éventuel entre la protection de l'environnement et les droits de propriété industrielle (et, plus particulièrement, des brevets) n'est apparue que récemment seulement et a été envisagée dans le Traité de la Biodiversité de 1992, le NAFTA et le GAIT/TRIPs. Le Traité de la Biodiversité a défini le principe général que les Etats-membres devront prendre des mesures appropriées pour empêcher que des droits privés de propriété industrielle empêchent l'accessibilité à la technologie appropriée, mais sans indiquer spécifiquement de quelles mesures adéquates il s'agit. Le NAFTA/TRIPs indiquent de manière spécifique que la brevetabilité est exclue dans ces cas. De plus, le GAlT/TRIPs mentionne explicitement des licences obligatoires dans les pays où ces licences existent dans le cadre de la législation nationale. Le dénominateur commun pour exclure la brevetabilité et pour prévoir des licences obligatoires est que la disponibilité d'une protection par brevet accordée à l'inventeur est fortement réduite d'une manière générale dans le premier cas et d'une manière spécifique dans le second cas. Apparemment, cette réduction est motivée par l'un ou l'autre des deux facteurs suivants: en interdisant la brevetabilité, on suppose parfois que l'activité industrielle correspondante peut être diminuée ou interrompue. D'autre part, l'interdiction de la brevetabilité et la prévision d'un système de licence obligatoire sont considérées comme étant un instrument efficace pour assurer un accès libre aux technologies et aux ressources correspondantes. Nous examinerons maintenant dans quelle mesure ces deux instruments sont disponibles ou devraient être disponibles dans notre système législatif national. 121

138 I. Etat des réglementations nationales Q: Les problèmes particuliers apparaissant aujourd'hui aux Pays-Bas et en rapport avec la protection de l'environnement sont-ils en relation avec des droits de propriété industrielle? Les milieux concernés sont-ils au courant de ce problème? R: Le système de brevets en vigueur aux Pays-Bas est déterminé par la Convention Européenne sur les Brevets (EPC) et la Loi néerlandaise sur les Brevets (DPA). La promulgation d'une nouvelle loi sur les Brevets (NPA) est attendue pour 1995, mais la nouvelle loi ne modifiera pas sensiblement la situation à propos de cette question. Tant l'epc (Art. 53a) que la DPA (Art. 5) et la NPA (Art. 3a) impliquent la prohibition générale de la brevetabilité pour des inventions contraires à l'ordre public ou la moralité. En outre, la DPA (Art. 34) et la NPA (Art. 57/58) contiennent des dispositions pour rendre obligatoire l'attribution de licences, y compris plus particulièrement les licences obligatoires pouvant être imposées par le Ministre des Affaires Economiques pour des raisons d'intérêt public. Par conséquent, les instruments mentionnés dans les traités internationaux pour gérer l'interface entre des politiques nécessaires de la protection de l'environnement et des droits privés de brevets gênants sont tous disponibles dans la législation nationale néerlandaise. Des difficultés particulières à ce sujet ne sont pas à prévoir. Q: Les dispositions particulières concernant la question de la protection de l'environnement limitent-elles la possibilité de déposer des demandes de brevet lorsque les inventions couvertes par les brevets pourraient être considérées comme pouvant affecter l'environnement; et sont-elles des dispositions particulières pour les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement? R: Non. Q: Le nombre de brevets en rapport avec la protection de l'environnement est-il actuellement en voir d'accroissement aux Pays-Bas? R: Des chiffres exacts ne son pas disponibles, mais, comme la technique de l'environnement se développe rapidement, on peut admettre que le nombre de demandes de brevets en rapport avec ce sujet se développera d'une manière correspondante. 122

139 4. Q: Des dispositions permettent-elles une licence obligatoire pour un brevet concernant la protection de l'environnement telles que des licences obligatoires existant dans certains pays dans l'intérêt de la défense nationale, de la santé publique ou de l'économie nationale? R: Des dispositions légales particulières n'existent pas, mais les dispositions existantes pour les licences obligatoires dans l'intérêt public offrent une base officielle adéquate pour attribuer obligatoirement des licences pour des brevets en rapport avec la protection de l'environnement. Dans les traités internationaux et la littérature scientifique, la protection de l'environnement est fréquemment mentionnée comme étant un exemple ou une politique des autorités publiques est indispensable. Cette interprétation est certainement admise également par les autorités néerlandaises. II. Existe-t-il un conf lit entre la brevetabilité d'une invention et la protection de l'environnement? Une distinction ne devrait-elle pas être faite entre: l'exploitation d'une invention qui peut s'avérer être nuisible et qui devrait donc être interdite et, d'autre part, la brevetabilité de cette invention? Certainement! La législation sur les brevets n'est pas conçue comme telle pour réglementer la protection de l'environnement et ne constitue pas un instrument approprié à cet effet. La protection de l'environnement ne peut être réglementée que par une législation administrative concrète. La délivrance d'un brevet est-il, en lui même, de nature a affecter la protection de l'environnement? Non. Ill. Les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement devraient-ils profiter d'un système particulier? 1. Disposition pour promouvoir l'examen et l'attribution de ces brevets. R: Un système particulier pour les brevets concernant la protection de l'environnement n'est pas recommandé. 123

140 2. Droits de tierces parties à utiliser des brevets en rapport avec la protection de l'environnement. R: Cette fois encore, Un système spécial n'est pas recommandé. Les dispositions légales néerlandaises concernant les licences obligatoires dans l'intérêt du public peuvent être considérées comme appropriées. lv. Aspects internationaux de la question R: Concernant les initiatives existantes pour l'harmonisation des lois sur les brevets et les principes établis dans le Traité de la Biodiversité, une législation internationale supplémentaire visant spécifiquement les brevets affectant la protection de l'environnement et l'accessibilité à la technologie n'est pas nécessaire. Zusammenfassung Einleitung Auf den ersten Blick sieht es so aus, als ob 'Patente" und "Umweltschutf nicht verwandte Themen betreffen würden. Das Patentrecht stellt ein System zum Schutz technischer Erfindungen dar. Um zu diesem Schutz berechtigt zu sein, werden solche Erfindungen auf Neuheit, erfinderische Tätigkeit und Ausführbarkeit geprüft. Es gibt einige sekundäre Erwägungen, wie ausreichende Offenbarung usw., aber die innere Natur der Erfindung an sich und/oder ihre gesellschaftlichen oder moralischen Verflechtungen sind irrelevant. Allerdings sind einige Gebiete, so wie therapeutische Behandlung, ausgeschlossen. Diese Gebiete sind jedoch Ausnahmen. Da der Bereich, für welche Patente erhalten werden können, kaum definiert ist (Industrie, einschliesslich der Landwirtschaft, Art. 3(1) niederländisches Patentgesetz), wären diese Ausnahmen eher als eine weitere Umschreibung dieses Bereiches als echte Beschränkungen zu betrachten. Gewissermassen gilt das Gleiche für die allgemeine Bestimmung, welche Patente für dem ordre public oder der öffentlichen Moralität zuwiderlaufende Erfindungen verbietet. Es ist eine Sicherheit für klare Ausnahmefälle, nicht ein wesentliches Prinzip für die Begründung, ob eine Erfindung patentfähig sei. Grundsatz war bisher, dass die innere Natur der Erfindungen an sich oder die gesellschaftlichen oder moralischen Verflechtungen von Erfindungen für deren Patentschutz irrelevant sind. Neuerdings scheint jedoch dieser Grundsatz des Patentrechtes in Frage gestellt zu werden. Es wird über eine beträchtliche Erweiterung der ausgeschlossenen Gebiete gesprochen. Es wird angeregt, dass beispielsweise Patente auf Pflanzen, Tiere und Materie von menschlicher Herkunft unmöglich gemacht werden sollen. Andererseits wird angeregt, dass die Patentierbarkeit von biotechnologischen Erfindungen gegenüber dem 'ordre pu- 124

141 blic" und der Moral geprüft werden sollte, wobei ein positives Ergebnis dieser Prüfung für die Gültigkeit jegliches auf eine solche Erfindung zu erteilenden Patentes Voraussetzung sein sollte. Eine verwandte Entwicklung ist der Gedanke, dass Zwangslizenzen an Inhaber von abhängigen Patenten auf Fälle beschränkt werden sollten, in welchen das abhängige Patent eine Erfindung betrifft, welche einen 'wesentlichen technologischen Fortschritt' darstelle. Alle diese Entwicklungen erfordern Überprüfung der inneren Natur und/oder der gesellschaftlichen oder moralischen Verflechtungen von Erfindungen durch Patentämtern und Zivilgerichte, welche für diese Aufgabe kaum ausgestattet sind. Er wäre zu bemerken, dass diese Entwicklungen im Endeffekt ein Element herbeiführen, welches dem Patentrecht fremd wäre und dessen Zuverlässigkeit beeinträchtigen könnte. Die Bezeichnung des Umweltschutzes als Element, das die Wirkung des Patentrechtes beeinflussen könnte, stelle eine Weiterführung der oben definierten Entwicklungsrichtung dar. Umweltschutz (d.h. die Ausarbeitung angemessener Massgaben für reine" Luft, Wasser und Boden und, zusammenhängend, Massgaben für Abwässer, für Abfallentsorgung, für chemische Stoffe im allgemeinen, für Umweltschädigung durch thermische Belastung, Lärm usw., und die Anwendung von Technologie zum Aufrechterhalten dieser Massgaben, die Beschränkung und die Kontrolle von umweltschädigenden Faktoren, Wiederherstellung und Verbesserung der Umwelt usw.) hat sich neuerdings als ein wichtiger Bereich behördlicher Verantwortlichkeit auf sämtlichen Verwaltungsebenen (d.h. staatlich, provinzial bzw. kommunal) herausgestellt. Nahe verwandte Gebiete sind Sicherheit und Schutz von Arbeitern, Regelung von Bautätigkeit und Baubetrieb, Stadt- und Regionalplanung, Schutz von Ökosystemen und Habitaten, Schutz gefährdeter Gattungen, usw. Diese Gebiete sind derart zusammenhängend, dass es tatsächlich sehr schwierige wäre, eine umfassende Definition der als "Umweltschutz" bezeichneten Aufgabe behördlicher Verantwortlichkeit zu geben. Elemente des Umweltschutzes sind in vielen Verwaltungsbereichen klar einbegriffen. Wie dem auch sei, wird der Umweltschutz als behördliche Aufgabe von einer substantiellen Sammlung von Verwaltungsrecht getragen. Wie all materielles Verwaltungsrecht hat es die Funktion gemein, gewisse Verhaltensweisen zu induzieren, also gewisses Verhalten mittels Angebot von Anreizen (Subvention, Steuererleichterungen) zu fördern, andererseits Verhalten mittels beispielsweise Bussen, Strafen und Abgaben gegebenenfalls zu bekämpfen. Zweifelsohne könnte das auferlegte Verhalten für Privatpersonen Beschränkungen der Freiheit und/oder von Rechten herbeiführen, welche ihnen ansonsten zugestanden hätten. Patente sind private Rechte, allerdings mit negativem Verhaltenseffekt. An und für sich induzieren Patente kein aktives Verhalten, sondern verhindern sie oder verbieten sie ein bestimmtes Verhalten. Patente schaffen geeignete Bedingungen für die Entwicklung der Technologie. Technologie könnte zur Verbesserung der Umwelt führen, andere Technolo- 125

142 gie dagegen die Umwelt beeinträchtigen. In dieser Hinsicht gibt es keinen direkten Zusammenhang - wenn schon ein Zusammenhang überhaupt bestehen würde - zwischen dem Dasein eines Patentsystems und Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt. Patente veranlassen als solche keine Verhaltensweisen, die für die Umwelt entweder vorteilhaft oder schädlich wären. Zwischen dem Patentsystem und Umweltschutz gebe es nur eine Interferenz, u. zw., wo Schutzrechte die Zugänglichkeit von Rohstoffquellen oder einer für den Umweltschutz wesentlichen Technologie verunmöglichen oder behindern. Es sollte nicht vergessen werden, dass von Patenten erbrachte Ausschliessungsrechte immer zeitlich beschränkt sind, öfters durch Konkurrenztechnologie verringert und eingeschränkt werden und dass das Patentsystem eine wesentliche Voraussetzung zur Schaffung neuer Technologie darstellt. Infolgedessen dürfte nicht zu bald angenommen werden, dass Patente, welche Rohstoffe oder wesentliche Umweitschutztechnologien monopolisieren, einer gesunden Durchführung des Umweltschutzes entgegenstehen würden. Nochmals: Patente und Umweltschutz sind kaum verwandte Themen. Nur ausnahmsweise wäre es denkbar, dass die Interessen von privaten Patentinhabern, welche Rohstoffe oder wesentliche Technologien monopolisieren, dem öffentlichen Interesse bezüglich der Zugänglichkeit solcher Rohstoffe oder Technologien entgegenstehen würden. Deswegen wäre zu bemerken, dass die 1992 in Rio de Janeiro zu diesem Thema in der Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen über Umwelt und Entwicklung erfolgten Besprechungen ziemlich theoretisch waren. Normalerweise sind natürliche Rohstoffe frei und frei zugänglich. Von Patenten werden lediglich Erfindungen geschützt, d.h. technische Ergebnisse, welche ohne die kreative Leistung des Erfinders und ohne Patentschutz vermutlich gar nicht dagewesen wären. Es ist schwer einzusehen, wie eine solche neue und noch nie dagewesene technische Lösung dem Umweltschutz entgegenstehen könnte. Trotzdem ist ein solcher Konflikt zwischen Umweltschutz und gewerblichen Schutzrechten neuerdings in verschiedenen Texten des internationalen Rechts berücksichtigt worden. Artikel 16 des Biodiversitätsvertrages sieht vor, dass Mitgliedstaaten geeignete gesetzliche, verwaltungsrechtliche bzw. politische Massnahmen treffen sollen, damit die Zugänglichkeit von für die Erhaltung und dauerhafte Verwendung der biologischen Verschiedenheit relevanten Technologien nicht von Patenten bzw. anderen gewerblichen Schutzrechten verboten oder behindert werden könnte. Die Art dieser 'geeigneten Massnahmen" wird im Vertrag nicht spezifiziert. NAFTA (Art. 1709) und GATI/TRIPS (Art. 27/2) sehen für Mitgliedstaaten die Möglichkeit vor, Erfindungen von Patentierbarkeit auszuschliessen, wenn es notwendig wäre deren wirtschaftliche Auswertung zu verhindern, um "ordre public" bzw. öffentliche Moralität bzw. Schutz von Menschen-, Tier- oder Pflanzenleben oder -gesundheit zu gewährleisten, oder um ernsthaften Umweltschaden vorzubeugen. 126

143 Im Zusammenhang damit hätte GATT/TRIPs, Art. 31, gegebenenfalls ein indirektes Effekt auf der Sache durch Erörterung von Bedingungen für Zwangslizenzen, "wenn das Recht eines Mitgliedstaates andere Verwendungen des patentierten Erfindungsgegenstandes ohne Bewilligung des rechtmässigen Inhabers zulässt. Zusammenfassend: Die Frage eines möglichen Konfliktes zwischen Umweltschutz und gewerblichen Schutzrechten (insbesondere Patenten) ist erst neuerdings aufgekommen und wird im Biodiversitâtsvertrag von 1992, NAFTA und GATI/TRIPs behandelt. Der Biodiversitätsvertrag legt die allgemeine Grundsatzbedingung dar, dass die Mitgliedstaaten geeignete Massnahmen treffen sollen, damit private Rechte des gewerblichen Eigentums die Zugänglichkeit von relevanten Technologien nicht blockieren, sie gibt jedoch keine spezifische Hinweise über diese geeigneten Massnahmen. NAFTA und GATT/TRIP5 sind spezifisch in bezug auf Ausschluss von der Patentierbarkeit in solchen Fällen. Zudem weisen GAlT/TRIPs spezifisch auf Zwangslizenzen in Ländern, in welchen solche Lizenzen nach nationalem Recht bestehen. Der Ausschluss von Patentierbarkeit und die Förderung von Zwangslizenzen haben gemein, dass sie den Wirkungsumfang des Patentschutzes für den Erfinder drastisch reduzieren, im ersten Fall in allgemeinem, im letzten Fall in spezifischem Sinne. Offensichtlich wird diese Reduktion von einem der zwei folgenden Gedanken begründet: Von einem Verbot der Patentierbarkeit wird manchmal unterstellt, dass die entsprechende gewerbliche Tätigkeit vermindert oder aufgehoben werden kann. Andererseits werden sowohl das Verbot der Patentierbarkeit als auch die Förderung von Zwangslizenzen als effektive Mittel um freie Zugänglichkeit der relevanten Technologien und Rohstoffe zu gewährleisten angesehen. Es sollte nunmehr geprüft werden, wie weit diese zwei Mittel in unserem eigenen nationalen Rechtssystem verfügbar sind bzw. verfügbar gemacht werden sollten. I. Bestehende Regelungen auf nationaler Ebene 1. F: Bestehen derzeit in den Niederlanden spezifische Probleme betreffend den Umweltschutz in bezug auf Rechte des gewerblichen Eigentums? Sind sich die interessierten Kreise dieser Probleme bewusst? A: Das in den Niederlanden bestehende Patentsystem ist von dem Europäischen Patentübereinkommen (EPÜ) und dem niederländischen Patentgesetz (NLPatG) bestimmt. Es wird mit der Einführung eines neuen Patentgesetzes (PatG) im Jahre 1995 gerechnet. Das neue Gesetz wird jedoch keine materielle Änderung des für diese Frage relevanten Sachverhaltes bringen. Das EPU (Art. 53a) so wie das NLPatG (Art. 5) und das neue PatG (Art. 3a) enthalten ein allgemeines Verbot der Patentierbarkeit für dem "ordre public' oder der öffentlichen Moralität entgegenstehende Erfindungen. Darüberhinaus enthalten das NLPatG (Art. 34) und das neue PatG (Art. 57/58) Vorschriften für 127

144 Zwangslizenzen u. zw. spezifisch jene Zwangslizenzen, welche im öffentlichen Interesse vom Volkswirtschaftsminister auferlegt werden können. Infolgedessen sind im niederländischen nationalen Recht sämtliche Mittel verfügbar, welche in den internationalen Verträgen zur Behandlung der Interferenz zwischen Erfordernissen des Umweltschutzes und möglicherweise streitigen privaten Schutzrechten angegeben werden. Es werden diesbezüglich keine besondere Probleme erwartet. F: Bestehen spezielle Vorschriften betreffend folgende Fragen: Beschränkung der Möglichkeit von Patenthinterlegungen, wenn die zu schützenden Erfindungen möglicherweise die Umwelt beeinträchtigen könnten; und spezielle Vorschriften in bezug auf Patente, welche den Umweltschutz zum Gegenstand haben? A: Nein. F: ist die Anzahl der Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz derzeit in den Niederlanden im Zunehmen begriffen? A: Spezifische Daten sind nicht vorhanden. Da die Umwelttechnologie jedoch in rascher Entfaltung begriffen ist, dürfte wohl angenommen werden, dass die Anzahl der betreffenden Patenthinterlegungen sich entsprechend entwickelt. F: Bestehen Vorschriften betreffend eventuelle Zwangslizenzen für Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz, wie die in einigen Ländern vorgesehenen Zwangslizenzen im Interesse der Landesverteidigung, des Gesundheitswesens oder der nationalen Wirtschaftsentwicklung? A: Es bestehen keine gesetzlichen Vorschriften, jedoch bieten die bestehenden Vorschriften für Zwangslizenzen im öffentlichen Interesse einen geeigneten Grund für Zwangslizenzen auf Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz. In den internationalen Verträgen und in der wissenschaftlichen Uteratur wird der Umweltschutz häufig als ein Gegenstand öffentlicher Interesse erwähnt. Ganz bestimmt wird diese Auslegung von den niederländischen Behörden unterschrieben. Il. Bestehen Konflikte zwischen der Patentierung von Erfindungen und dem Umweltschutz? F: Es stellt sich die Frage, ob man hier nicht zwischen zwei Varianten unterscheiden sollte, u. zw.: 128

145 Praktische Anwendung einer Erfindung, welche schädliche Auswirkungen haben könnte und deshalb verboten werden sollte; und Grundsätzliche Patentierbarkeit einer solchen Erfindung? A: Ja, bestimmtl Das Patentrecht als solches ist nicht zur Regelung des Umweltschutzes geschaffen worden und ist kein zu diesem Zwecke geeignetes Mittel. Umweltschutz wäre nur mittels materiellen Verwaltungsrechtes zu regeln. F: Kann die Patenterteilung für eine solche Erfindung an sich den Umweltschutz beeinträchtigen? A: Nein. Ill. Sollte für Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz eine besondere Regelung gelten? I Vorschriften um die Prüfung und die Erteilung solcher Patente speziell zu fördern A: Ein besonderes System für Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz wird nicht empfohlen. Rechte Dritter zur Anwendung von Patenten betreffend den Umweltschutz A: Ein spezielles System wird auch in diesem Falle nicht empfohlen. Die niederländischen rechtlichen Vorschriften in bezug auf Zwangslizenzen im öffentlichen Interesse werden als geeignet angesehen. IV.s Internationale Aspekte A: Über den bestehenden Initiativen zur Harmonisierung des Patentrechtes und den im Biodiversitätsvertrag erläuterte Grundlagen hinaus gebe es keinen Bedarf an einer weiteren auf Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz und die Zugänglichkeit der Technologien spezifisch gezielten internationalen Gesetzgebung. 129

146 République Slovaque Slovak Republic Siowakische Republik Report in the name of the Slovak Group by Dr. KOPSOVA Patents and protection of the environment I. Patents and preserving of environment Special attention to the environment is paid in the legal regime of the Slovak Republic, and there are a great number of restrictions which affect environmental activities, especially General Law Nr. 17/92 of the Collection of Laws about the environment and special legal amendments concerning separate environmental components (water, soil, air, nuclear emergencies, etc.). A new amendment, Law Nr. 127/94, 2.2, concerning evaluation of environmental effects is also important. Interest in protecting the environment is evident not only from the point of view of the public, but also from that of the State authorities. In the existing law amending Law Nr. 527/90 of the Collection of Laws, there are 90/93 regulations, which do not permit the licensing of those inventions which contravene the public interest, especially the principles of humanity and public morality. Special rules related to protecting the environment during the patenting process are not in the previous law. We are not able to express our opinions on this question, because no database on inventions of an ecological character are available. Judicial interpretations involve regulations about necessary permits, which would be acceptable to protect environmental interests. Il. Authorizing an invention and its usage depends on the relationship between the invention itself and whether it contravenes the public interest and the principles of humanity and public morality. In this sense it is analogously involved with the environment, but that is not expressed explicitly. Removing the object from the licensing process is possible when it could damage the environment. Such an invention is rejected in accordance with the law. 130

147 We think that patents related to environmental protection could be introduced in a special system, namely from the point of view of the environment. Precise identification of this problem through judicial rulings or during the application process would contribute to solving the problems of the environment as a whole. lt is also valid when considering practical usage of objects of industrial rights. a) Evaluation of patents which relate to environmental protection could be accelerated with the goal of immediate use of the invention. That presently depends on the requests of the inventor. b) Lowering fees is not possible now because evaluating objects of industrial rights and their connection to the environment is very demanding. C) lt would be possible to recommend to the national agencies publishing inventions, especially those which are relating to developing and protecting the environment, to publish them in separate publications or to place a special mark onto existing publications. Present practice does not distinguish between objects of industrial ownership. lv. Mandatory licensing in cases where the parties do not enter into friendly agreement is in accordance with judicial rulings in our country. A National agency should enter into negotiations with third parties with the aim of eliminating any difficulties at the negotiations and securing effective usage of the invention. Consideration of the international aspects of this question is, in our opinion, necessary to solve this problem in accordance with existing agreements and those that are in the process of being formulated. To isolate these problems into one convention would be difficult to introduce as well as to implement in each country. That is why we suggest that the problems of protecting the environment be solved by a protocol to the Paris Convention. We do not believe it useful to form a special system for developed countries or to establish a new international organization. 131

148 Suède Sweden Schweden Report Q 128 in the name of the Swedish Group by Eva JARNVALL and Katarina LUNDBLAD VANNESJÔ Patents and protection of the environment I. State of the national rules As far as the Swedish Group i aware, no specific problems related to intellectual property rights have been raised in the Swedish discussions regarding the protection of the environment. The Swedish Patent Act does not contain any specific provisions regarding environment-related inventions, neither for such inventions which could be harmful to the environment nor for inventions which concern environmental protection. Article 1 of the Patents Act does contain a provision which prohibits the patenting of inventions if the exploitation thereof would be contrary to ordre public or morality (i.e. a rule corresponding to Article 53 (a) of the European Patent Convention). This provision is intended to be interpreted in a very restrictive manner. It has been discussed whether this rule could be used to stop the patenting of inventions which could cause serious ecological damage. In the Swedish doctrine, the opinion is that the provision would hardly be applicable. The Group has not been able to find relevant statistics on this point. However, it is highly probable that the number of patents involving environmental protection is increasing. This is of course also a question of definition - a number of inventions patented today are improvements of previously known techniques, which radically reduce the environmental effects of the technique, i.e. the amount of harmful waste produced by a certain process. In this meaning, a large number of patents involve environmental considerations. There is no specific provision permitting compulsory licensing on patents concerning environmental protection. However, article 47 of the Patents Act states that a compulsory license can be obtained when "required by public interests of extreme importance'. It is possible that this provision could be applied in a case of extreme urgency, i.e. a threatening ecological catastrophe. 132

149 Il. Is there a conflict between patentability of an invention and protection of the environment? The Swedish Group is indeed of the opinion that a distinction must be made between the patenting of an invention and the exploitation thereof. The granting of a patent does not in itself permit the patentee to exploit the invention, and the absence of a patent does not hinder such exploitation. Thus, the grant of the patent is not in itself of such a nature as to affect environmental protection. Furthermore, the evaluation of the possible environmental effects of an invention is not a task for the patent offices. Since the office largely depends on the information submitted by the applicant, it may not even be possible for the office to foresee the harmful effects of the use of the invention. This evaluation must be handled by other authorities, specialized in this field. If such an authority considers an invention to be so harmful to the environment that the use of the invention should be prohibited, this can be done regardless of the fact that the invention is patented. This aspect of the discussion on environmentally harmful inventions largely corresponds to the debate concerning the ethical aspects of granting patents on biotechnological inventions. On this issue, it has been stressed that the problem of non-ethical uses of such inventions must be kept apart from the question of patentability, since the patenting of a biotechnological invention does not in itself give the patentee a right to exploit the invention in a way that is unacceptable to society. Such uses must instead be controlled by other means. The Group believes that the same principal position should be maintained as regards inventions which could harm the environment. Ill. Should patents concerning environmental protection enjoy the benefit of a particular system? To find a workable definition of the concept patents relating to environmental protection" is, according to the Swedish Group, very difficult. As discussed in the Guidelines, such a definition must also cover inventions which reduce the harmful effects on nature. As mentioned above, this can probably be said for a large number of inventions today, since they often radically reduce effluents, waste, water pollution etc, in comparison with earlier techniques. A drastic example may be that a new insect repellant, however toxic it may be, probably is less toxic than for instance DDT, and consequently can be said to reduce harmful effects on the environment. Another example is an invention, consisting in a new process for producing electricity by burning coal, which is more effective than earlier known processes. This is without doubt an invention which reduces the adverse effects on nature - yet the process produces a number of substances which are harmful to the environment. As concerns the question of a particular system for patents relation to environmental protection, the Group is of the principal opinion that the aim should be to keep the patent system as clean as possible from special solutions for separate fields of technology. The Group is not aware of any problems in relation to the possibility of patenting environmentrelated inventions, which would require a separate system for such patents. The problems 133

150 which may be experienced in certain (mostly non-european) countries by companies active in this field - slow examination, high costs etc - are general problems, present also for other areas of industry. 1. Provisions for promoting examination and grant of such patents The Group would like to point out that a special program for promoting the grant of patents of inventions related to environmental protection would communicate that society favours such granting. This could lead to a risk that the threshold for patentability - especially the inventive step requirement - unconsciously will be lowered as regards this type of inventions. Thus, the efforts to enhance environmental protection could have the adverse effects, if environment-friendly techniques, which ought to be accessible for everyone, are monopolized. The Group would prefer that efforts were made to promote efficient and fast examination of all types of applications. No. If economical support in certain cases is needed for the patenting of this type of inventions, such support could be provided by other public means. c-d) These types of means for promoting the dissemination of the results of research in this field would certainly be beneficial. lt should, however, be investigated whether this could not be carried out by existing institutions, rather than creating new, expensive organisations for these tasks. Those institutions need not necessarily be public. 2. Rights of third parties to use inventions relating to environmental protection The Group opposes the introduction of new grounds for compulsory licensing of patents. This would be contraproductive to the reasons behind promoting patents in the field of environmental technology - to stimulate inventive activity by giving the inventor better possibilities to exploit his invention, thus having a better chance to gain back the money invested in research and development. Compulsory licensing systems are detrimental to these incentive mechanisms, and could consequently have negative effects on the inventive activity in this field. The notion of forcing owners of know-how to inform others of the results of his research and development activities is unacceptable. IV. International aspects of the Question a-b) According to the Swedish Group, there is no need of international harmonisation regarding patents relating to environmental inventions, which goes beyond the need of harmonizing the patent system as a whole. If any specific provisions regarding such inventions should be harmonized, this should be done in the Patent Law Treaty presently under preparation by WIPO. 134

151 c-d) In most developing countries and other countries where environmental problems are huge, the main problem is often that economical resources for investments in new technologies are scarce. One important way to promote the use of new techniques for protecting and restoring the environment in such countries would therefore be financial aid from the industrialized countries to facilitate investments in such techniques as well as the transfer of know-how. Summary Swedish patent law does not contain any specific provisions neither as regards the patentability of inventions which could damage the environment nor concerning patents which relate to environmental protection. The Swedish Group strongly believes that it is necessary to distinguish between the patentability and the exploitation of an invention. The grant of a patent does not in itself have environmental consequences. The exploitation of environmentally harmful inventions - patented or not - must be controlled by other means. The Group is also of the opinion that there should not be particular systems for certain fields of technology. Consequently, the Group does not support the idea of special provisions to promote the patenting of inventions relating to environmental protection. Résumé Dans la loi suédoise des brevets il n'existe pas de dispositions spécifiques concernant ni la brevetabilité des inventions qui pourrait nuire à l'environnement ni concernant les brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement. Le groupe suédois croit fortement que c'est absolument nécessaire de faire une distinction entre la brevetabilité et l'exploitation d'une invention. La délivrance d'un brevet n'a pas ellemême des conséquences pour l'environnement. L'exploitation des inventions - avec ou sans protection des brevets - qui portent atteinte à l'environnement doit être contrôlée par d'autres mesures. Le groupe est de l'opinion qu'il ne faudrait pas avoir des régimes particuliers pour certains domaines de technologie. En conséquence, le groupe ne soutient pas le principe de provisions spéciales pour inciter le dépôt de brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement. 135

152 Zusammenfassung Betreffend Patentfâhigkeit von Erfindungen, die die Umwelt beeinträchtigen könnten, oder die zum Schutz der Umwelt vorgesehen sind, gibt es in dem Schwedischen Patentgesetz keine besonderen Bestimmungen. Die Schwedische Gruppe ist der bestimmten Ansicht, dass es notwendig ist, zwischen der Patentfähigkeit und der Anwendung einer Erfindung zu unterscheiden. Die Patenterteilung an sich hat in bezug auf Umweltschutz keine Konsequenzen. Die Anwendung von Erfindungen - mit oder ohne Patentschutz - die die Umwelt beeinträchtigen müssen mit anderen Mitteln kontrolliert werden. Die Gruppe ist auch der Meinung, dass für spezielle Gebiete der Technologie keine Sonderregelungen vorgesehen sein sollen. Infolgedessen unterstützt die Gruppe nicht den Vorschlag, dass besondere Massnahmen getroffen werden sollen, um das Patentieren von Erfindungen betreffend Umweltschutz zu fördern. 136

153 Suisse Switzerland Schweiz Bericht Q 128 im Namen der Schweizer Landesgruppe von A.J. FRAUENKNECHT, Dr. P. GRUBB, Dr. P. HEINRICH, Dr. H. HAMMANN, Dr. W. MEZGER, A.K. MIRZA, Dr. B.M. ROTH (Vorsitzender) Patente und Umweltschutz Grundsätzlich beeinflusst sämtliches menschliche Tun die Umwelt. Soweit der Mensch mittels technischer Mittel auf die Umwelt einwirkt, können für entsprechende Erfindungen Patente erteilt werden. In unserer Gesellschaft gibt es keinen Konsens darüber, welche Techniken umweltvertrâglidi sind und welche nicht. Dies ist Gegenstand der politischen Auseinandersetzung. Die Beurteilungskriterien für den Umweltschutz sind dazu noch sehr subjektiv und je nach Weltanschauung sehr verschieden. Zudem ist zu beachten, dass, was heute als umweltverträglich betrachtet wird, möglicherweise morgen als umweltschädlich angesehen wird und umgekehrt. Das Patentrecht für den Umweltschutz zu bemühen, ist also sehr problematisch. Die nachfolgenden Ausführungen versuchen diese Problematik zu erläutern. I. Bestehende Regelungen auf nationaler Ebene 1. Bestehen derzeit spezifische Probleme betreffend Umweltschutz in Bezug auf Rechte des gewerblichen Eigentums? Sind sich die interessierten Kreise dieser Probleme bewusst? Sowohl innerhalb der interessierten Kreise wie auch im Publikum haben mögliche Probleme bis jetzt wenig bis keine Beachtung gefunden, obschon das Bewusstsein dazu vorhanden ist. Dies beruht vermutlich darauf, dass echte Probleme gar nicht existieren oder, sofern tatsächlich vorhanden, mit bestehenden Instrumenten gemeistert werden können. Einzig auf dem relativ neuen Gebiet der Biotechnologie wird seit nunmehr einigen Jahren in der breiten Öffentlichkeit eine rege Diskussion über Patente und Leben bzw. Patente und Ethik geführt. Es ist zu erwarten, dass in Zukunft Aspekte des Umweltschutzes auch in der 137

154 Biotechnologie eine vermehrte Aufmerksamkeit erhalten werden und diese Diskussion auf andere Gebiete der Technik ausgedehnt wird. Bestehen spezielle Vorschriften über folgende Fragen: Beschränkung der Möglichkeit von Patenthinterlegungen, wenn die zu schützenden Erfindungen möglicherweise die Umwelt beeinträchtigen könnten; spezielle Vorschriften in bezug auf Patente, welche den Umweltschutz zum Gegenstand haben? Beide Fragen können für die Schweiz verneint werden. In Art.2a PatG werden "Erfindungen, deren Veröffentlichung oder Verwertung gegen die öffentliche Ordnung oder die guten Sitten verstossen würden" von der Patentierung ausgeschlossen (vgl. hierzu auch den entsprechenden Artikel 53a im Europäischen Patent übereinkommen). Erfindungen, deren erklärter Zweck die Schädigung der Umwelt ist, wären zweifellos gemäss Art. 2a PatG von der Patentierung ausgeschlossen. Praktisch dürften Patentanmeldungen auf solche Erfindungen aber nicht vorkommen. Der Gesetzgeber hat aber durch Aufnahme dieser Ausschluß bestimmung nie daran gedacht, eine Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in das Patenterteilungsverfahren miteinzubeziehen. Mit diesen Ausschlussbestimmungen sollte lediglich die Patentierung von Erfindungen verhindert werden, die ausschließlich oder hauptsächlich auf eine Störung der öffentlichen Ordnung oder der guten Sitten ausgerichtet ist, nicht aber die Patentierung von Erfindungen, die auch zu diesen Zwecken missbraucht" werden könnten (Z.B. Sprengstoffe, Waffen, Gifle usw.). Das BAGE ( Bundesamt für geistiges Eigentum = Schweizerisches Patentamt) bzw. der Bundesrat haben im Bericht über "Biotechnologie und Patentrecht" vom August 1993 bereits Ueberlegungen betreffend Ausschluß der Patentierung von Erfindungen, die die Umwelt gefährden, angestellt. Sie kommen zum Schluss, dass der allgemeine Vorbehalt der öffentlichen Ordnung und der guten Sitten im geltenden Patentrecht bereits enthalten ist, jedoch noch zu vertiefen und zu konkretisieren wäre. In Fachkreisen herrscht die Auffassung, dass Art. 2a PatG den Anforderungen des Umweltschutzes genügt und die Konkretisierung den Gerichten vorbehalten sein sollte. In den Prüfungsrichtlinien des Schweizerischen Patentamtes (BAGE) sind keine den Umweltschutz betreffende Ausführungen und Beispiele vorhanden. Ist die Anzahl der Patente betreffend Umweltschutz derzeit Im Zunehmen begriffen? Erfindungen betreffend Umweltschutz gehören den verschiedensten Gebieten der Technik an und können als solche nicht recherchiert werden. Es ist jedoch möglich, nach einzelnen 138

155 Stichwörtern oder Stichwörterkombinationen zu recherchieren, wie z.b.: Boden, Wasser, Luft, Umwelt, Verschmutzung, Abfall, Abwasser, Klärschlamm, Abgase, Abbaubarkeit, Wiederverwertung, usw.. Man kann dabei feststellen, dass seit 1970 eine stetige Zunahme von schweizerischen Patenten, worin solche Stichworte in den Abstrakt vorkommen, zu beobachten ist. Je nach Stichwort erhähte sich die Anzahl Patente von 1970 bis 1992 um einen Faktor von 1,5 bis Bestehen Vorschriften betreffend eventuelle Zwangslizenzen für Patente betreffend Umweltschutz, wie die in einigen Ländern vorgesehenen Zwangsllzenzen Im Interesse der Landesverteidigung, des Gesundheitswesens oder der nationalen Wlrtschaftsentwicklurtg? In der Schweiz bestehen keine besonderen Vorschriften für Zwangslizenzen in spezifischen Gebieten der Technik, somit auch nicht für Erfindungen betreffend Umweltschutz. Allgemeine Bestimmungen über Zwangslizenzen sind in den Art. 36 bis 40 des PatG enthalten. Art. 36 sieht im Falle von abhängigen Erfindungen, welche gegenüber der älteren Erfindung einen technischen Fortschritt aufweisen, Art. 37 bei ungenügender Ausübung und Art. 40 im Falle von öffentlichem Interesse, Zwangslizenzen vor. Im Rahmen der Umsetzung des GAlT/TRIPs-Vertrages in das inländische Recht, wird die Schweiz bei ihren Zwangslizenzbestimmungen die GAlT/TRIPs-Bestimmungen berücksichtigen müssen, welche ebenfalls keine Sonderregelungen für den Umweltschutz vorsehen. Als weiteres Rechtsinstrument besteht beim Vorliegen von öffentlichem Interesse die in Art. 32 PatG vorgesehene Möglichkeit der Enteignung durch den Bundesrat. Die Erteilung von Zwangslizenzen unter Patenten, die den Umweltschutz betreffen, Ist also unter dem bestehenden Patentgesetz grundsätzlich möglich. Zwangslizenzen müssen aber auf wirkliche Ausnahmesituationen beschränkt sein, stellen sie doch einen schweren Eingriff in die Rechte des Patentinhabers dar. Für den Normalfall von z.b. abhängigen Erfindungen sind freiwillige Lizenzen mit Verhandlungen stets vorzuziehen. Bezüglich der Erteilung von Abhängigkeitslizenzen sei an dieser Stelle auf die Stellungnahme der schweizerischen Landesgruppe zur AIPPI Frage Q 97 im AIPPI Annuaire 1988/IX, S. 152 und auf den Resolutionsentwurf des Arbeitsausschusses im AIPPI Annuaire 1990/ VII, S.108 verwiesen. 139

156 H. Bestehen Konflikte zwischen der Patentierung von Erfindungen und dem Umweltschutz? 1. Sollte man hier nicht zwischen zwei Varianten unterscheiden? Sollte die praktische Auswertung einer Erfindung, welche schädliche Auswirkungen (auf die Umwelt) haben könnte, deshalb verboten werden? Sollten solche Erfindungen grundsätzlich nicht patentierbar sein? 2. Kann die Patenterteilung für eine solche Erfindung an sich den Umweltschutz beeinträchtigen? Es wäre sicher falsch, Umweltschutz über den Weg von Patentierungsverboten zu betreiben. Auch eine nicht patentierte technische Lehre kann tatsächlich angewandt werden, die Umweltschädigung wird durch Verhinderung der Patentierung nicht vermieden. Ein Patent gibt seinem Inhaber auch kein Recht, die patentierte technische Lehre zu verwenden; auch der Patentinhaber ist ohne Einschränkungen an die Gesetze zum Schutz der Umwelt gebunden. Anerkanntermassen stellen Patente einen Anreiz für innovative Tätigkeiten dar, welche nicht bereits in ihrer Anfangsphase behindert werden sollten. Zum Zeitpunkt der Patentierung sind Erfindungen oft noch nicht optimiert und liegen noch nicht in einer Ausführungsform vor, die allen Ansprüchen des Umweltschutzes genügten. Wenn nun schon von vornherein Auflagen betreffend Umweltschutz zu berücksichtigen wären, könnte dies bewirken, dass gewisse Produkte oder Verfahren entweder gar nie entwickelt würden oder deren Entwicklung bereits vorzeitig abgebrochen würde, da deren Patentierung nicht sicher gestellt werden kann. Es muss die Aufgabe spezifischer anderer Gesetze sein und bleiben, die Verwertung von nicht umweltverträglichen Verfahren, Produkten oder Techniken zu verhindern. Durch zusätzliche Patentierungsverbote könnten für die Allgemeinheit vorteilhafte neue Entwicklungen verlangsamt oder sogar verhindert werden. Eine Patenterteilung fördert aber den Fortschritt im Bereich des Umweltschutzes in gleicher Weise wie im Bereich anderer Technologien. Die Möglichkeit, für eine neue Entwicklung bzw. eine Erfindung eine Patent erhalten zu können, bildet einen Anreiz für Anstrengungen und Investitionen auf allen Gebieten der Technik, einschliesslich des Umweltschutzes. Die Prüfung auf Patentierbarkeit und Umweltverträglichkeit sollte grundsätzlich unabhängig voneinander durch die dafür zuständigen und befähigten Instanzen durchgeführt werden. Bei der Prüfung auf Patentfähigkeit steht es dem Anmelder frei, die Verbesserung der Umweltverträglichkeit als wesentlichen Bestandteil der Erfindung herauszustellen und damit den Nachweis der erfinderischen Tätigkeit zu führen. Umgekehrt sollte aber weder die blosse Möglichkeit schàdlicher Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt noch deren tatsächlicher Nachweis zu einem automatischen Ausschluß von der Patentierbarkeit führen. Solche 140

157 Prüfungen müssen Gegenstand gesonderter Zulassungsverfahren sein; Patentämter sind zu derartigen Prüfungen gar nicht in der Lage. III. gelten? Sollte für Patente betreffend den Umweltschutz eine besondere Regelung Zu den Patenten für den Umweltschutz gehören in erster Linie Patente, welche direkt den Schutz der Umwelt zum Gegenstand haben, z.b. die Behandlung von Abgasen oder verschmutzten Abwässern oder Böden. Auch "Recycling-Verfahren gehören hierher. Aber es gibt auch Patente über Erfindungen, welche nicht direkt die Verbesserung des Umweltschutzes zum Gegenstand haben, jedoch trotzdem eine solche Auswirkung haben, weil sie Beeinträchtigungen und Schädigungen der Natur verhindern oder verringern. Hierzu dürfte eine Vielzahl von Erfindungen gehören, wird doch bei vielen Erfindungen z.b. die Ausbeute erhöht, die Menge der Abfallprodukte verringert, die Verwendung von toxischen Produkten vermieden, der Energieverbrauch reduzidrt, die gleiche Wirkung mit geringeren Mengen erreicht, etc. Die Grenzen sind hier sehr unscharf, und die Erfassung ist entsprechend schwierig bis unmöglich. Im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung des Umweltschutzes, welcher die ganze Allgemeinheit betrifft, stellt sich die Frage, ob man nicht, wie im Gebiet des Gesundheitswesens, für Patente in Bezug auf Erfindungen zur Verbesserung des Umweltschutzes eine Sonderregelung vorsehen sollte? 1. Vorschriften, um die Prüfung und die Erteilung solcher Patente speziell zu fördern: Sind solche Vorschriften grundsätzlich zu befürworten? Grundsätzlich sollten alle Gebiete der Technik, in denen Erfindungen anfallen, gleich behandelt werden. Es hat sich in der Vergangenheit immer wieder herausgestellt, dass Sonderregelungen eher zu zusätzlichen Problemen als zu deren Lösung beigetragen haben (vgl. früheres Stoffschutzverbot für Heilmittel). Bevorzugungen oder Diskriminierungen bestimmter Erfindungskategorien sind abzulehnen. Aus dem geltenden schweizerischen Recht (Art. 24 septies der Bundesverfassung und Umweltschutzgesetz 1985) lässt sich keine Forderung zur Umgestaltung des Rechts bezüglich "Patente und Umweltschutz ableiten. Dem Schweizer Recht kann kein Auftrag für eine aktive, auf Anreize gerichtete, Umweltpolitik entnommen werden und schon gar nicht bezüglich einer Umgestaltung des Patentrechts. Trotz der bereits grundsätzlichen Ablehnung von Sonderregelungen wird zu den vorgeschlagenen Varianten wie folgt Stellung genommen: 141

158 Sollen Patente betreffend Technologien für den Umweltschutz rascher geprüft werden? Der Anmelder sollte ganz allgemein auf allen Gebieten der Technik die Möglichkeit haben, einen Antrag auf beschleunigte Prüfung seiner Patentanmeldung stellen zu können. Eine Sonderstellung für Umweltschutzerfindungen ist nicht erwünscht oder gerechtfertigt, da solche Erfindungen in der Regel eine lange Entwicklungszeit benötigen und eine generell beschleunigte Prüfung kein Vorteil wäre, weder für den Erfinder noch für die Allgemeinheit. Sollen für solche Patente geringere Gebühren gelten? Eine Regelung mit geringeren Gebühren ist abzulehnen, weit einerseits dadurch andere Erfindungen diskriminiert würden und andererseits heute praktisch jede Erfindung irgendwie mit Umweltschutz in Zusammenhang gebracht werden kann und damit Anrecht auf geringere Gebühren erlangen würde. Sollen solche Patente Gegenstand einer besonderen Veröffentlichung bilden, um dem interessierten Publikum rascher und effizienter zur Kenntnis zu gelangen? Nachdem heute in den meisten Ländern die Patentanmeldungen 18 Monate nach Anmeldung publiziert werden und auch via Datenbanken zugänglich sind, scheint eine weitere, nur zusätzliche Kosten verursachende, Publikation wenig zweckmässig. Sinnvoll wäre vielleicht eine spezielle Klassifikation, damit diese Patentanmeldungen schneller und sicherer gefunden werden. Das BAGE hat im Nachgang zum Umweltgipfel in Rio eine Projektgruppe eingesetzt, welche entsprechende Vorschläge erarbeitet. Könnte man zur Ueberwachung von Patenterteilungen betreffend Umweltschutz besondere Agenturen schaffen; diese Agenturen müssten dann Kontakt aufnehmen mit solchen Unternehmungen, welche für die Anwendung der patentierten Erfindungen am ehesten geeignet erscheinen; dies sollte den Abschluss von Vereinbarungen mit den Patentinhabern begünstigen? Solchen Agenturen sollten auf rein privater Basis errichtet werden. Auch im Umweltschutzbereich ist den freien Marktkräften Raum zu gewähren; die staatliche Vermittlung erscheint als unnötig. 2. Rechte DrItter zur Anwendung von Patenten betreflend Umweltschutz a) Muss man im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung des Umweltschutzes Dritten ein Recht zum Gebrauch von Erfindungen betreffend Umweltschutz einrâumen? Sofern dieses Recht über den Weg von normalen, freiwilligen Lizenzverhandlungen an Dritte weitergegeben wird, kann diese Frage bejaht werden. Zwangsmassnahmen werden abgelehnt (vgl. hierzu auch Antwort zu Frage 1.4.). Wenn es einen wirklichen 142

159 technologischen Durchbruch auf dem Gebiet des Umweltschutzes gibt, dann wird sich die Umstellung auf die neue Technologie von selbst einstellen, nämlich dann, wenn es für den betroffenen Unternehmer sinnvoll wird, diese Technik erfolgreich und gewinnbringend anzuwenden. Bisher war das Patentrecht kein Hemmschuh für den technischen Fortschritt, sondern der antreibende Motor dazu. Mit diesem Vorbehalt werden auch die nachfolgenden. Fragen beantwortet. Soll dieses Recht durch eine Zwangslizenz realisiert werden, falls sich die Parteien nicht gütlich einigen können? Zwangslizenzen sind nur im heutigen gesetzlichen Rahmen (Art.36 bis 40 PatG) annehmbar. Eine Spezialregelung für Erfindungen aus dem Umweltschutzbereich ist abzulehnen. Nachdem man heute bemüht ist, die Bestimmungen für Zwangslizenzen weltweit zu harmonisieren und auf die Bestimmungen gemäss GAIT/TRIPs zu beschränken, ist die Einführung neuer Spezialbestimmungen unerwünscht und steht im Widerspruch zum heutigen Trend, der auf die Einschränkung von Zwangslizenzen zielt. Wegen der Unsicherheit, was überhaupt eine Umweltschutz betreffende Erfindung ist, wäre dem Missbrauch des Instruments der Zwangslizenz TOr und Tor geöffnet. Soll der Patentinhaber den Gebrauch seiner patentierten Technologie im Gebiet des Umweltschutzes verbieten können? Ein Patent ist ein Verbietungsrecht und gibt dem Patentinhaber das Recht, Dritte vom Gebrauch seiner Erfindung auszuschliessen. Dieses Recht schliesst die Anwendung im Umweltschutz natürlich auch mit ein. Eine Ausschliessung des Umweltschutzes vom Verbietungsrecht würde dem Umweltschutz entgegenwirken, da die Motivation, in erfindungsträchtige Gebiete des Umweltschutzes zu investieren, weitgehend verloren ginge. Da die Grenzen des Umweltschutzes fliessend sind, würden Ausschlussbestimmungen den Patentschutz überhaupt in Frage stellen. Soll man staatliche Massnahmen, wie z.b. die Schaffung einer speziellen Agentur, in Aussicht nehmen, um Verhandlungen zwischen den Patentinhabern und Interessenten an der Auswertung der patentierten Technologie zu erleichtern? Die Schaffung einer neuen staatlichen Agentur ist zu vermeiden. Sie würde die Verhandlungen nur komplizieren und nicht erleichtern, ja sie könnte sogar vor Lizenzverhandlungen abschrecken. Partner in Lizenzverhandlungen sind mündig und brauchen keine staatliche Einmischung. In einer Zeit zunehmender Privatisierung passt eine solche Agentur nicht ins Bild; auch ist zu befürchten, dass sie nur unnötige Kosten verursachen würde. 143

160 b) Sollte man soweit gehen, dass der Inhaber eines Know-how im Gebiet des Umweltschutzes verpflichtet wird, sein Know-how zwecks effizienter Verwertung, Dritten zur Verfügung zu stellen? Dieser Vorschlag läuft auf Know-how-Zwangslizenzen hinaus, welche genau so abzulehnen sind wie Patent-Zwangslizenzen. Derartige Gesetzeslestimmungen würden den Anreiz, innovative Anstrengungen im Umweltschutz zu unternehmen, hemmen; zudem wäre die Durchsetzbarkeit einer solchen Bestimmung wohl kaum realisierbar und eine derartige Auflage daher äusserst fragwürdig. IV. Internationale Aspekte Soll man in Bezug auf den Umweltschutz eine Harmonisierung der Patentgesetze in Aussicht nehmen? Eine Harmonisierung des Patentrechts Ist schon hängig. Eine weitere, spezielle Harmonisierung im Hinblick auf den Umweltschutz ist nicht angezeigt und wenig sinnvoll, nachdem die WIPO-Harmonisierung bereits ins Stocken geraten Ist. Eine Harmonisierung müsste sich darauf beschränken, allfällige, bereits vorhandene Sonderbedingungen (in der Schweiz: keine vorhanden) für Patente betreffend Umweltschutz zu eliminieren. Es besteht somit kein Handlungsbedarf. Wäre eine solche Harmonisierung im Rahmen der Entwürfe der WIPO zur Harmonisierung des Patentrechts vorzusehen? Sofern aber harmonisiert werden muss, so müsste dies im Rahmen der laufenden WIPO-Harmonisierung erfolgen, doch ist davon eigentlich eher abzuraten, da dies nur eine weitere Belastung der gegenwärtigen Harmonisierungsbemühungen bedeuten würde. Sonderregelungen sind grundsätzlich abzulehnen. Sollte diese Harmonisierung im Rahmen der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft realisiert werden? Da für die Harmonisierung des Patentrechts betreffend Umweltschutz schon kein Bedürfnis besteht und sie höchstens im Rahmen der WIPO-Harmonisierung gesehen werden könnte, besteht erst recht keine Veranlassung, diese Harmonisierung im Rahmen der PVUe durchzuführen; diese ist daher abzulehnen. Wäre nicht ein besonderes internationales Abkommen vorzuziehen, entsprechend der 1992 am Umweltgiptel in Rio ausgearbeiteten Vereinbarung? Nachdem 'Rio viele Unsicherheiten hinsichtlich des Patentschutzes für biotechnologische Erfindungen bewirkte und einige Unterzeichner zu interpretativen Erklärungen Zuflucht nehmen mussten, um abzusichern, dass der Patentschutz über diese Konvention nicht verwässert oder gar verhindert werden könnte, muss davon abgeraten 144

161 werden, für Umweltschutzpatente ein ähnliches internationales Abkommen abschliessen zu wollen. Der Erosion des Patentschutzes würde damit nur Vorschub geleistet. Sollte man für die Entwicklungsländer besondere Regeln vorsehen, damit diese Länder zum Know-how betreffend die Technologie für den Umweltschutz rascher Zugang erhalten? Die Frage des rascheren Zugangs ist nicht eine Frage des Patentrechts, sondern der Politik und Wirtschaft. Solange der Wille nicht da Ist und die finanziellen Ressourcen fehlen, gelangt keine Umwelttechnologie in Entwicklungsländer, ungeachtet der Tatsache, ob Patente oder sogenannte besondere Regeln" existieren oder nicht. In diesem Sinne sind solche besonderen Regeln abzulehnen. Könnte man eine internationale Organisation in Aussicht nehmen, welche an den in Frage stehenden Patenten die Rechte etwirbt (Patent Pool) und sodann zum Gebrauch dieser Patente Lizenzen einräumt? Sofern eine solche Organisation rein privatwirtschaftlich wäre, könnte man ihr zustimmen. Eine staatliche oder staatlich unterstützte Organisation wäre aber abzulehnen. V. Schlussfolgerung Zur Frage Patente und Umweltschutz besteht heute kein Handlungsbedarf. Zusammenfassung Grundsätzlich beeinflusst sämtliches menschliche Tun die Umwelt. Soweit der Mensch mittels technischer Mittel auf die Umwelt einwirkt, können für entsprechende Erfindungen Patente erteilt werden. In unserer Gesellschaft gibt es keinen Konsens darüber, welche Techniken umweltverträg-. lich sind und welche nicht. Dies ist Gegenstand der politischen Auseinandersetzung. Das Patentrecht ist ungeeignet, diese Fragen zu beurteilen. Die Beurteilungskriterien für den Umweltschutz sind dazu noch sehr subjektiv und je nach Weltanschauung sehr verschieden. Zudem ist zu beachten, dass, was heute als umweltverträglich betrachtet wird, möglicherweise morgen als umweltschädlich angesehen wird und umgekehrt. Sowohl innerhalb der interessierten Kreise wie auch im Publikum haben in der Schweiz mögliche Probleme bis jetzt wenig bis keine Beachtung gefunden. Sofern echte Probleme tatsächlich vorhanden sein sollten, können diese mit bestehenden Instrumenten gemeistert werden. 145

162 Spezielle Vorschriften über die Beschränkung der Möglichkeit von Patenthinterlegungen, wenn die zu schützenden Erfindungen möglicherweise die Umwelt beeinträchtigen könnten und in bezug auf Patente, welche den Umweltschutz zum Gegenstand haben, bestehen in der Schweiz nicht. Erfindungen, deren erklärter Zweck die Schädigung der Umwelt ist, wären zweifellos gemäss Art. 2a PatG ("Erfindungen, deren Veröffentlichung oder Verwertung gegen die öffentliche Ordnung oder die guten Sitten verstossen würden) von der Patentierung ausgeschlossen. Der Gesetzgeber hat aber durch Aufnahme dieser Ausschlussbestimmung nie daran gedacht, eine Umweltverträglichkeitsprùfung in das Patenterteilungsverfahren miteinzubeziehen. Erfindungen betreffend Umweltschutz gehören den verschiedensten Gebieten der Technik an. Man kann feststellen, dass die Anzahl Patente, worin Stichworte betreffend Umweltschutz vorkommen, von 1970 bis 1992 um einen Faktor von 1,5 bis 6 zugenommen haben. Es wäre sicher falsch, Umweltschutz über den Weg von Patentierungsverboten zu betreiben. Auch eine nicht patentierte technische Lehre kann tatsächlich angewandt werden, die Umweltschädigung wird durch Verhinderung der Patentierung nicht vermieden. Anerkanntermassen stellen Patente einen Anreiz für innovative Tätigkeiten dar, welche nicht bereits in ihrer Anfangsphase behindert werden sollten. Es gibt spezifische andere Gesetze, welche die Verwertung von nicht umweltverträglichen Verfahren, Produkten oder Techniken verhindern können. Eine Patenterteilung fördert aber den Fortschritt im Bereich des Umweltschutzes gleich wie im Bereich anderer Technologien. Die Prüfung auf Patentierbarkeit und Umweltverträglichkeit sollte grundsätzlich unabhängig voneinander durch die dafür zuständigen und befähigten Instanzen durchgeführt werden. Bei der Prüfung auf Patentfähigkeit steht es dem Anmelder frei, die Verbesserung der Umweltverträglichkeit als wesentlichen Bestandteil der Erfindung herauszustellen. Umgekehrt sollte aber die blosse Möglichkeit schädlicher Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt nicht zu einem automatischen Ausschluss von der Patentierbarkeit führen. Solche Prüfungen müssen Gegenstand von Zulassungsverfahren sein; Patentämter sind zu derartigen Prùfungen gar nicht in der Lage. Zu den Patenten für den Umweltschutz gehören in erster Unie Patente, welche direkt den Schutz der Umwelt zum Gegenstand haben. Aber es gibt auch Patente über Erfindungen, welche nur indirekt die Verbesserung des Umweltschutzes zum Gegenstand haben. Hierzu dürfte eine Vielzahl von Erfindungen gehören. Die Grenzen sind hier sehr unscharf. Grundsätzlich sollten alle Gebiete der Technik, in denen Erfindungen anfallen, gleich behandelt werden. Es hat sich in der Vergangenheit immer wieder herausgestellt, dass Sonderregelungen eher zu zusätzlichen Problemen als zu deren Lösung beigetragen haben. Der Anmelder sollte ganz allgemein auf allen Gebieten der Technik die Möglichkeit haben, einen Antrag auf beschleunigte Prüfung von Patentanmeldungen stellen zu körtnen. Auch eine Regelung mit geringeren Patentgebühren Ist abzulehnen. Mit beiden 146

163 Massnahmen würden andere Erfindungen diskriminiert, da man heute praktisch jede Erfindung irgendwie mit Umweltschuti in Zusammenhang bringen kann. Nachdem heute in den meisten Ländern die Patentanmeldungen 18 Monate nach Anmeldung publiziert werden, scheint eine weitere Publikation wenig zweckmässig. Sinnvoll wäre vielleicht eine spezielle Klassifikation, damit diese Patentanmeldungen schneller und sicherer gefunden werden. Der Schaffung neuer staatlicher oder staatlich unterstützter Agenturen zur Ueberwachung von Patenterteilungen betreffend Umweltschutz oder für Verhandlungen zwischen Patentinhaber und Interessenten an der Auswertung oder einer neuen Patent-Pool-Organisation für Lizenzvergaben Ist nur zuzustimmen, wenn diese privatwirtschaftlich organisiert wären. In der Schweiz bestehen keine besonderen Vorschriften für Zwangslizenzen in spezifischen Gebieten der Technik, somit auch nicht für Erfindungen betreffend Umweltschutz. Die Erteilung von Zwangslizenzen unter Patenten, die den Umweltschutz betreffen, Ist also unter dem bestehenden Patentgesetz (Art. 36 bis 40) grundsätzlich möglich, eine Spezialregelung ist abzulehnen. Dritten wird ein Recht zum Gebrauch von Erfindungen betreffend Umweltschutz am besten mittels normalen, freiwilligen Lizenzen eingeräumt. Know-how-Zwangslizenzen sind genau so abzulehnen wie Patent-Zwangslizenzen. Derartige Gesetzesbestimmungen würden den Anreiz, innovative Anstrengungen im Umweltschutz zu unternehmen, hemmen; zudem wäre die Durchsetzbarkeit einer solchen Bestimmung kaum realisierbar. Ein Patent ist ein Verbietungsrecht und gibt dem Patentinhaber das Recht, Dritte vom Gebrauch seiner Erfindung auch im Umweltschutz auszuschliessen. Eine Ausschliessung des Umweltschutzes vom Verbietungsrecht würde dem Umweltschutz entgegenwirken, da die Motivation, in erfindungsträchtige Gebiete des Umweltschutzes zu investieren, weitgehend verloren ginge. Da die Grenzen des Umweltschutzes fliessend sind, würden Ausschlussbestimmungen den Patentschutz überhaupt in Frage stellen. Eine Harmonisierung des Patentrechts ist schon hängig. Eine weitere, spezielle Harmonisierung im Hinblick auf den Umweltschutz ist nicht angezeigt und wenig sinnvoll. Eine Harmonisierung müsste sich darauf beschränken, allfällige, bereits vorhandene Sonderbedingungen (in der Schweiz: keine vorhanden) für Patente betreffend Umweltschutz zu eliminieren. Es besteht somit kein Handlungsbedarf, weder im Rahmen der WIPO-Harmonisierung noch einer PVUe-Revision. Nachdem "Rio" viele Unsicherheiten hinsichtlich des Patentschutzes für biotechnologische Erfindungen bewirkte, muss davon abgeraten werden, für Umweltschutzpatente ein ähnliches internationales Abkommen abschliessen zu wollen. Die Frage des rascheren Zugangs zur Umweltschutztechnologie für Entwicklungsländer Ist nicht eine Frage des Patentrechts, sondern der Politik und Wirtschaft, d.h. des Willens und der finanziellen Ressourcen. Besondere Regeln sind daher abzulehnen. 147

164 Schlussfolgerung Zur Frage 'Patente und Umweltschutz" besteht heute kein Handlungsbedarf. Résumé En principe, toute action humaine a une influence sur l'environnement. Les inventions qui en découlent sont aussi brevetables, pour autant que l'homme y exerce son action par un moyen technique. Dans notre société, il n'existe aucun concensus sur la question de savoir quelles sont les techniques conciliables ou non avec l'environnement. Ceci est l'objet de débats politiques. Le droit des brevets ne permet pas de régler ces questions. A cet égard, les critères de jugement sur la protection de l'environnement sont encore très subjectifs et différent selon la vision du monde que l'on a. A cela s'ajoute Je fait que ce que l'on considère aujourd'hui comme incompatible avec l'environnement peut être perçu demain comme compatible ou inversement. Jusqu'à présent, il n'y a eu aucun ou peu de problèmes réels ayant été l'objet de considération particulière aussi bien dans les cercles intéressés que dans le public. Pour autant qu'il s'agisse de vrais problèmes, ils peuvent être maîtrisés avec les moyens existants. Il n'existe en Suisse aucune prescription limitant la possibilité de pouvoir déposer des demandes de brevet pour des inventions pouvant nuire à l'environnement et permettant l'octroi de brevets correspondants. Les inventions dont le but est de nuire à l'environnement seraient sans aucun doute exclues de la brevetabilité conformément à l'arl2a de la loi fédérale sur les brevets d'invention ('ne peuvent être brevetées les inventions dont la publication ou la mise en oeuvre serait contraire à l'ordre public ou aux bonnes moeurs'). Par l'introduction de cette clause d'exclusion, le législateur n'a certainement jamais envisagé d'y inclure un test de compatibilité à l'environnement lors de la procédure d'examen du brevet. Les inventions touchant la protection de l'environnement appartiennent aux domaines de la technique les plus divers. On peut constater que le nombre des brevets caractérisés au moyen de mots de passe se référant à la protection de l'environnement a augmenté d'un facteur de 1,5 à 6 entre 1970 et Il serait certainement faux de vouloir protéger l'environnement par le biais d'interdictions de brevetabilité. Même un enseignement technique non-brevetable peut aussi être mis en pratique, les dommages causés à l'environnement ne peuvent pas être évités en interdisant la brevetabilité. Il est bien connu qu'un brevet, du fait qu'il protège les inventions, est un encouragement à l'innovation qui ne devrait pas être freinée lors de sa phase initiale déjà. Il existe d'autres 148

165 lois spécifiques pour empêcher l'exploitation de procédés, de produits et de techniques non compatibles avec l'environnement. Comme pour d'autres technologies, l'octroi d'un brevet dans le domaine de la protection de l'environnement contribue à son développement. L'examen de la brevetabilité et de la non-compatibilité avec l'environnement devraient en principe être fait indépendamment l'un de l'autre par des instances compétentes et qualifiées. Lors de l'examen de la brevetabilité, le titulaire de la demande est libre de mettre en valeur le fait d'améliorer l'environnement, en tant qu'élément essentiel de l'invention. A l'inverse, la seule possibilité d'avoir des effets nocifs sur l'environnement ne devrait pas conduire à refuser automatiquement la brevetabilité. De tels examens doivent être l'objet de procédures de reconnaissance. Les offices des brevets ne sont pas en mesure de le faire. Parmi les brevets sur la protection de l'environnement, ceux touchant directement la protection de l'environnement sont à mentionner en premier lieu. Il existe cependant d'autres brevets touchant indirectement des inventions ayant pour objet l'amélioration de l'environnement. Un grand nombre d'entre eux devrait en faire partie. Les limites sont ici très imprécises. En principe, tous les domaines de la technique mettant en oeuvre des inventions doivent être traités de la même manière. Il s'est toujours révélé, dans le passé, que la mise en place de dispositions spéciales a plutôt créé de nouveaux problèmes que contribué à les résoudre. Le titulaire de la demande devrait avoir en général la possibilité, pour tous les domaines de la technique, de pouvoir requérir un examen accéléré. Une disposition permettant une réduction des taxes n'est pas souhaitable également. Ces deux mesures contribueraient à discriminer les autres inventions étant donné que l'on peut aujourd'hui, sous une forme ou sous une autre, mettre en relation pratiquement chaque invention avec l'environnement. Dû au fait qu'aujourd'hui, dans la plupart des pays, les demandes de brevet sont publiées 1 8mois après leur dépôt, il ne semble pas judicieux de procéder à une publication ultérieure. Il serait peut-être préférable d'avoir une classification spéciale afin de pouvoir trouver ces demandes de brevet d'une façon plus rapide et avec plus de sûreté. li n'est pas souhaitable de créer de nouvelles agences d'états ou d'agences soutenues par l'état pour surveiller la délivrance des brevets relatifs à la protection de l'environnement ou pour engager des négociations entre le titulaire du brevet et les tiers intéressés à sa réalisation; il en est de même pour la création d'organisations specialisées dans l'octroi de licences. Ceci ne serait envisageable que sur une base économique purement privée. Il n'existe en Suisse aucune prescription spéciale réglant les licences obligatoires concernant les domaines spécifiques de la technique, y compris pour les inventions concernant la protection de l'environnement. L'octroi de licences basées sur les brevets qui en résultent est en principe aussi possible, conformément à la loi actuelle sur les brevets 149

166 d'invention (Art ); l'introduction d'un réglement spéciale n'est pas souhaitable. Pour ces inventions, un droit d'utilisation peut être octroyé aux tiers de préférence au moyen de licences gratuites normales. L'octroi de licences de savoir-faire n'est également pas souhaitable, comme les licences obligatoires. La mise sur pied de telles dispositions légales entraverait l'innovation; de plus, leur mise à exécution serait difficilement réalisable. Un brevet est un droit prohibitif et donne le droit au titulaire du brevet d'interdire aux tiers de faire usage de son invention, y compris pour la protection de l'environnement. Exclure la protection de l'environnement de ce droit prohibitif irait à l'encontre de la protection de l'environnement, ce qui conduirait à freiner toute motivation d'investir dans ce domaine. Des dispositions d'exclusion mettraient en question la protection par brevet de l'environnement, domaine dont les limites sont floues. Une harmonisation du droit des brevets est en cours. Une harmonisation spéciale supplémentaire pour la protection de l'environnement n'est pas indiquée et est peu judicieuse. Elle se limiterait à exclure d'éventuelles conditions particulières (aucune pour la Suisse) déjà prévues pour les brevets touchant la protection de l'environnement. Il n'existe donc aucune nécessité d'agir, ni dans le cadre de l'harmonisation OMPI ni dans celui d'une révision PVU. La conférence de Rio a entraîné bien des incertitudes quant à la protection par brevets des inventions biotechnologiques; il est par conséquent recommandé, pour le domaine de la protection de l'environnement, de ne pas vouloir conclure un traité international semblable. La question qui concerne la possibilité d'accéder plus rapidement à la technologie de la protection de l'environnement pour les pays en voie de développement ne relève pas du droit des brevets mais de la politique et de l'économie, c'est à dire du bon vouloir et des ressources financières. L'introduction de reglements particuliers est donc à désapprouver. Conclusion Il n'existe aujourd'hui aucune nécessité d'agir en ce qui concerne la question touchant les brevets et la protection de l'environnement. Summary In principle all human activity affects the environment. Insofar as humankind acts upon the environment by technical means, patents may be granted on corresponding inventions. In our society there is no consensus on which technologies are environmentally acceptable and which are not. This is the subject of political debate. Patent law is unsuited to judging these questions. Furthermore, the assessment criteria for environmental protection are highly subjective and differ widely according to personal viewpoints. It should also be no- 150

167 ted that what is considered environmentally acceptable today may be seen tomorrow as environmentally harmful and vice versa. Both within interested circles and among the general public, little or no attention has so far been paid to such possible problems in Switzerland. Insofar as real problems actually occur, they can be dealt with by existing means. In Switzerland there are no special rules relating to limiting the possibility of patenting inventions which could harm the environment, nor to patents relating to environmental protection. Inventions the declared object of which is to harm the environment would doubtless be excluded from patentability by Art. 2a of the Swiss Patent Law (Inventions the publication or exploitation of which would be contrary to ordre public" or "morality). However, the legislature certainly never intended by adopting this exclusion to import an examination for environmental acceptability into the patent prosecution procedure. Inventions relating to environmental protection belong to a wide range of technical fields. It can be established that the number of patents which contain keywords relating to environmental protection have increased by a factor of from 1.5 to 6 between 1970 and lt would certainly be mistaken to foster environmental protection by the practice of refusing patents. Even a non-patented technical teaching can be used. Damage to the environment cannot be avoided by preventing patenting. lt is generally accepted that patents act as a spur to innovative activity which should not be handicapped in its early stages. Specifically, there are other laws to prevent the exploitation of environmentally harmful processes, products or technologies. Patenting promotes progress in the field of environmental protection, just as in other technologies. Examination of patentability and of environmental acceptability should in principle be kept strictly separate and carried out by the responsible and competent authorities. n the examination for patentability it is open to the applicant to highlight improvements in environmental acceptability as an essential feature of the invention. On the other hand, the mere possibility of harmful effects on the environment should not lead to automatic exclusion from patentability. This type of examination must be the subject of regulatory approval procedures; patent offices are quite unable to carry out such examinations. Patents for environmental protection are for example primarily those the direct object of which is the protection of the environment. But there are also patents for inventions which only indirectly concern the improvement of environmental protection. Numerous inventions come into this category and there are no sharp dividing lines. In principle all technical fields in which inventions are made should be treated equally. Past experience has repeatedly shown that special rules led to additional problems rather than to solutions. Quite generally, in all technical fields the applicant should have the possibility to request accelerated examination. A provision with reduced patent fees should also be 151

168 rejected. Both measures would discriminate against other inventions, as at present almost any invention may be alleged to have some connection with environmental protection. As today in most countries patent applications are published 18 months from filing, there seems little point in any additional publication. lt might however be sensible to provide a special classification whereby such patent applications could be found quicker and more reliably. The creation of new state or state-supported agencies to monitor the grant of patents relevant to environmental protection or to negotiate between patentees and potential users, or a new patent pool organisation for out-licensing, could be agreed to only if organised purely by the private sector. In Switzerland there are no special rules for compulsory licences in any specific technical fields, and thus none for inventions relating to environmental protection. The grant of compulsory licences under patents relating to environmental protection is in principle possible under the existing patent law (Art ), and no special rules should be made. Rights of third parties to use inventions for environmental protection are best achieved by means of normal voluntary licences. Compulsory know-how licences are to be ruled out just as much as compulsory patent licences. Such provisions would block the incentive to undertake innovative efforts in environmental protection; in addition the enforceability of such provisions would hardly be feasible. A patent is a right of exclusion and gives the patentee the right to exclude others from the use of his invention, also in the field of environmental protection. To remove environmental protection, from this exclusionary right would be counterproductive, as the motivation to invest in the area of environmental protection would be largely lost. As the boundaries of environmental protection are fluid, exclusion provisions would call patent protection itself in question. Harmonization of patent law is already pending. A further special harmonization in the light of environmental protection is not required and would make little sense. Harmonization would have to limit itself to eliminate any already existing special provisions for patents relating to environmental protection (in Switzerland there are none). There is therefore no need for action, either within the framework of the WIPO harmonization talks or a revision of the Paris Convention. After "Rio caused many uncertainties concerning patent protection for biotechnological inventions, those who wish to conclude a similar international treaty on patents relating to environmental protection should be dissuaded from doing so. The question of a more rapid access to environmental technology for developing countries is not a question of patent law, but one of politics and economics, i.e. the will and the financial resources. Special rules are therefore to be avoided. 152