[1] “Panel Report, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R (2000).”

 [2] “Patents are often viewed as instrument of economic policy aimed at rewarding the inventor, Straus Joseph, Biotechnology and Patents, 54 CHIMIA 293 (2000).”

[3] “EU: Directive 98/44/EC, Art. 3.2.”

[4] “Hettinger N, Patenting life: Biotechnology, intellectual property and environmental ethics, Boston College
Environmental Law Review (1994-1995, 267 2022).”

[5] “Schloendroff v Society of New York Hospital, (1914) 105 N.E. 92, 93 (NY).”

[6] “Moore v Regents of the University of California, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146 (Cal 1990).”

[7] “The argument derives its bedrock ingredients from the Lockean argument which concurs with the right to ownership of a man over any product crafted by him. The argument boils down from the ‘I made it and it would not have existed without my intervention’ paradigm. For a summary on the Lockean theory of labor argument of property see Lawrence Becker, Property Rights, Chapter 4, (1997) in Hettinger N, Patenting Life: Biotechnology, Intellectual property and Environmental Ethics, Boston College. C. Environmental Affairs Law Review, 1994-1995, 267 (2022).”

[8] “Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries, AIR 1982 SC 1444.”

[9] “U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Section  8, Cl. 8.”

[10] “35 U.S.C. Section 1.”

[11] “U.S. Patent Act (35 U.S.C.). The US Patent Act is found in Title 35 of the US Code and contains the federal statutes governing patent law in the United States http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/index.html.”

[12] “Melissa E. Horn, DNA Patenting and Access to Healthcare: Achieving the Balance among Competing Interests, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 253 (2002-2003)”

[13] “DeMott John S & Thomas Evan, Test-Tube Life: Reg. US Pat. Off., (30 June 1980)”

[14] “447 US 303 (1980).”

[15] “ibid, 310-318.”

[16] “333 US 127”

[17] “In Re Allen, (846 F.2d 77, Fed. Cir. 1988); Genetics Institute, Inc. (927 F.2d 1200, Fed. Cir. 1991)”

[18] “The European Biotechnology Directive; directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.”

[19] “Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) 2002 SCC 76”

[20] “Hormone Relaxin, 1995 O.J. E.P.O. 388 (Opp. Div.)”

[21] “When the Uruguay Round was launched, several developing countries resisted the entry of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) into the agenda. But under pressure from the U.S. (and its S.301 threats) they yielded, resulting in the agreement on Trade- Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as part of the WTO agreements.’ The industrialized countries (and the industries of the North that were the driving force behind TRIPS) succeeded in setting rules that were viewed by several economic experts of developing countries as having the potential to cause most damage to development prospects’, Failure of TRIPS: A time for review, The Hindu, 21 April 2001.”

[22] “K. M. Gopakumar, Mashelkar Committee Report: A Critique, Center for Trade and Development (CENTAD), 2003

[23] V R Krishna Iyer, O Chinnappa Reddy, D A Desai & Rajinder Sachar, Peoples’ Commission on GATT, Centre for Study of Global Trade System and Development (1996).”

[24] “Dimminaco A G v Controller of Patent Designs & Ors 2002 IPLR 255 Cal. H.C”

[25] “Patents (Amendment) Act Section  4(e) (June 25, 2002); Section  3 (j) was developed along the lines of Article 27(3) (b) it states that plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro-organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals are not patentable.”

[26] “The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, No. 15 OF 2005, Section 3”

[27] Indian Patent Office, Annual Report 2007-08, https:ipindia.gov.inwritereaddataPortalIPOAnnualReport1_85_1_1_38_1_annual-report-07-08.pdf.

[28] “The African Group’ s comprehensive proposals have received much support from other developing countries in the WTO, civil society groups, and NGOs, WT/GC/W/302.”

[29] “The developing countries which had little or no say in drafting most TRIPS provisions viewed the review process scheduled every 4 years as a means to make their demands heard. See, Review of Article27.3(b), Paper IP/C/W/369/Rev.1.”

[30] “TRIPS, Biological Resources and Public Health: Documents and Discussion Papers Presented at the ICTSD - Africa Group Roundtable on 12 June 2001, https://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/IPR_collection.pdf”

[31] “Panel Report, European Communities and their Member States, WT/DS 114/R (17 March 2000).”

[32] “Novartis AG v Adarsh Pharma and Anr 2004(3)CTC95”

[33] “Dr Raju K D, The debacle of Novartis patent case in India: Strict interpretation of patentability criteria under Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement, Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 1 (1) (2008).”