植物遺傳資源權益與生物技術智慧財產權保護之研究

Abstract

拜先進的生物技術之賜，人類的糧食產量及醫療品質大幅提升，為持續鼓勵創新，自應給予生物技術發明人適當的智慧財產權保護。然而，這些豐碩的成果卻是建構在自然界豐富的植物遺傳資源上。雖然植物遺傳資源的價值藉由生物技術研發而獲得彰顯，但若缺乏這些豐富的植物遺傳資源及其間所具有的有效成分作為原料，則再先進的生物技術亦無用武之地。因此，如何調和植物遺傳資源擁有者權益與發明人之智慧財產權就成了重要的議題。在國際間，係以強調智慧財產權保護的TRIPs協定及重視利益分享的CBD作為兩大思潮論證的舞台。究竟專利制度是否會妨礙植物遺傳資源擁有者應有之權益？而管制遺傳資源之取得並要求利益分享，又是否會減損生物技術發明人之利益？是否有特殊的保護體制可以衡平雙方的利益？凡此種種，都是引起各方議論的焦點。本文將從國際規範的角度出發，研究TRIPs協定和CBD的立法本旨與條文涵義，探索兩者在規範意義上是否牴觸，並從其他國家的具體實踐中，檢視TRIPs協定和CBD在實證經驗中的相互關係，以釐清專利制度與利益分享制度的相容性，並探求透過特殊保護體制調和雙方權益之可能。根據本文之研究發現：CBD與TRIPs協定在規範意義上並不必然發生衝突，專利制度與利益分享制度亦可透過國內立法之調和，以追求相互支持及雙贏；而特殊保護體制所具有的立法彈性，將使得各國可以依據本國之情況來調和雙方之利益。

By the rapid progress of biotechnology, our quality of food and medical service has been highly raised. To facilitate the continuing development of biotechnology, it is a huge incentive to provide inventors intellectual property rights protection (IPRs). However, these plenty of great inventions are resulted from natural genetic resources. Though the value of plant genetic resources cannot be revealed without the biotechnology, this logic also applies when there are no genetic resources available as raw material for biotechnology research. Therefore, how to reconcile the benefit between the owners of plant genetic resources and biotechnology inventors becomes the most important issue. Since the conclusion of the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the protection of IPRs has marched from domestic level towards global standards. Every WTO members are required to provide IPRs protection to biotechnology inventions. On the other hand, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is based upon the principle of sustainable development, requiring the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, inter alia, by appropriate transfer of technologies. Thus, in the international society, there is a growing attention on the compatibility of the principles honored by both regimes, underling the inherent inconsistence between the developed and developing nations on this issue. Accordingly, the question could also arise as to whether there is a conflict between TRIPs and CBD in the light of their objectives and practices. Furthermore, how much legislative flexibility the sui generis system of TRIPs 27.3(b) really suggests still remains unknown. This thesis rethinks the role of international law and legal concepts, studying the objectives and principles of TRIPs and CBD, and trying to examine the interaction between both regimes through national practices. By analyzing theses different aspects of view in detail, this thesis finds that mutual contradiction of the provisions between TRIPs and CBD are unlikely to happen, no matter in nature or implications of both treaties. In addition, patent system and benefit sharing should be able to implement in a way of mutually supported and thus reach the win-win goal.