「自然法則」運用與個人化醫療診斷方法專利適格性判斷──從美國Mayo v. Prometheus案判決談起

This article addresses issues presented in the U.S. Supreme Court's Mayo v. Prometheus decision- whether an invention applying laws of nature and a personalized medical treatment process can be patented. The question whether a process/method invention is patentable has been long disputed. In particular, many have argued that personalized medical treatment process inventions should not be patented because those inventions claim laws of nature. In Mayo, the Supreme Court held that a personalized medicine dosing process invention is patent ineligible, finding that this invention is nothing more than an application of laws of nature. How to determine whether a medical treatment process is a patent ineligible application of laws of nature or a patentable subject matter remains controversial, however. In addition, to allow an inventor to patent a medical treatment process will inevitably implicates patients' rights and public health. How to set forth a standard to determine the patentability of medical treatment inventions becomes critical not only for the adjudicator in a single dispute but also for the policy maker. Taiwan's patent law currently prohibits a medical treatment process patent. Nonetheless, it deserves a careful consideration on whether to allow such patents in Taiwan in order to encourage the biotechnology industry's innovation. This article will look into the lessons from American experiences and figure out a feasible/possible approach to improving Taiwan's current patent law.