---

The recognition of patentability of biotechnological inventions by the the industrial countries’ patent offices in the last two decades and increasingly growth of the number of patents in this field have caused considerable ethical challenges and controversies, apart from technical difficulties. Some challenges stem from critical views about biotechnology and the environmental effects of genetic manipulations of living organisms and some critics are related to the monopolistic profits of patent holders and limitation of third parties access to the biotechnologies and intensification of trade attitude to the intellectual property rights. However some challenges are especially related to the implications of biotechnological patents, such as commodification of life in general and human genes and his body parts specifically, violation of human dignity and biopiracy and unfair exploitation of the third world genetic resources and traditional knowledge by the patent holders from industrial countries. After reviewig related legal developments and moral considerations in the patent laws and legislations, we will study the approaches of patent offices through the case studies of some famous controversial patents. The morality of inventions has not been considered in patent laws of some countries, such as U.S., but many patent laws, including European Patent Convention, TRIPs agreement and EU Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the inventions which are contrary to the morality are excluded from patentable subject matter. However regarding the ambiguous concept of morality and economic benefits of biotechnological invitations and trade competitions in this field, the patent offices taking a utilitarian approach, narrowly interpret such provisions and rarely care the moral objections to the confered patents.

---

Granting of intellectual property rights on biological materials could be very contentious issue from cultural, legal, ethical and religious points of view. This could be even more complicated, once it acquires an international dimension. The Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) is the latest international arrangement under which, a complex structure for international protection of intellectual property rights has been created. However, while it embodies some provisions of pervious international documents on intellectual property rights, it reflects a unique and unprecedented scheme of protection of intellectual property rights, which also highlights a tension between developed and developing countries especially over the patentability of biological inventions. The provisions of TRIPs make it difficult for developing countries to deny such protection. However, it is possible for them to limit the scope of such protection by relying on exceptions provided by TRIPs and also by relying on the distinction between invention and discovery. These strategies would allow developing countries to exercise some discretion in defining the scope of patentable biotechnologies.

---

            In 2007, the Iranian parliament decided to exclude genetic resources, genetic materials and biological processes for their production from the Iranian industrial property regime by adding article 4 (d) to the Patent, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Act. During the ratification, this rule caused controversial debates between proponents and opponents of protecting biotechnology inventions. Proponents of article 4 (d) considered the best choice to wait and see before taking a final decision. This was a wise choice in this context to review the literatures and different national, regional and international approaches on the issues of the patentability of genetic materials and biotechnology inventions enabled Iran to be aware of its specific needs and obligations on the subject; and to create a defensive protection regime of genetic resources. In contrast, opponents of article 4 (d) emphasize that the importance of biotechnology does not decrease and that more than enough information is available today to take an informed decision and tailor an adequate patent law applicable in this field. Concerning such a challenge, this paper analyzes the main approaches of the patent regimes with the goal of establishing a balanced regime on protection of biotech inventions as well as protection of genetic resources.    .    
 

---

     The patents’ term prolongation through protecting the new detected uses is the problematic matter that has been seriously attended by the developed countries in recent years. Iranian legislators’ uncertainty toward the subject within the respective legislatures illustrates the legal importance of taking a stance, which is consistent with the primary principles of patent law and international obligations. The present article, aiming at finding a comprehensive approach, surveys the legal status of  the mentioned emerging  issue at three levels i.e. international (Trips agreement),  regional (European Patent Convention and Andean :union:), and territorial laws. Based on the findings of this work, the uncontested and primary principles of patent law entail that the new uses either within opponent or proponent jurisdictions must be posed as “process invention”. Accordingly, the opponent jurisdictions via narrowing, and proponent jurisdictions via extending the domain of legal definition of “process invention” shall adjust and restrict the protect ability of these intellectual achievements      
 

---

 The priority right is a right that preserves the first applicant’s right for a patent in one of the member countries of the convention, treaty or agreement for a limited period in another country or its member states. The priority right, particular priority right and leniency deadline are the same in nature. The priority right may be under multilateral and bilateral conventions or considered as national priority right. The principle is that this right cannot be rejected, and according to the principle of independence of the patent certificate, patent invalidity does not lead to the rejection of the priority right. The priority right plays an important role in supporting the patent applicant, including, the possibility of patent in the member country of Convention, Treaty and Agreement; time criteria for determining the novelty and invention step of the claimed invention; time criteria for the best method in implementation of invention; time criteria for the discloser and publication of invention; and saving money and creating opportunities for the patent in a different country are thought out. This right creates for the inventors an importance effect, i.e. “peace of mind in the protection of intellectual works”.              
*. Corresponding Author’s  E-mail: sadegh_m@modares.ac.ir

---

Due to the necessity of commercialization of inventions created in universities and research institutions and at the same time providing necessary incentive for inventors, determining the ownership of theses inventions has attracted the attention of policy makers of intellectual property law.  Theoretically, there are four main ownership structures: 1) University ownership model, 2) Inventor ownership model 3) Joint ownership of inventor and university model 4) No ownership and entrance to public domain. In this paper, at first, we will briefly introduce these models and their application in practice. Then in order to provide a model consistent with the criteria of distributive justice, we explain three main criteria of justice. Then we investigate consistency of each model with three justice criteria. Finally due to the importance of determining the best person to commercialize the inventions, we propose a hybrid model of ownership titled "Initial ownership of university with ownership option of inventors ".

---

Today, paying attention to innovation in achieving economic growth and development is of great importance for researchers and policymakers. Thus, this study investigates the efficiency of the national innovation system of Iran in comparison with the countries subject to the 2046 Vision of Iran as well as China and South Korea (as two successful countries in technology catching-up policies). The study uses a two-stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) over the period 2011-2016. Moreover, a Tobit model is employed to study the impact of environmental factors on the efficiency of the national innovation system. Findings indicate that Iran's national innovation system is inefficient. Although the efficiency trend in the stage of creating inventions and originalities shows a positive slope, when it enters the commercialization stage, the system operates very weekly. To increase the efficiency of the national innovation system, improving the governance indicators and university-industry collaboration are among the most effective policies proposed in this research.

---

In Iran, there is no particular statute for registration of military inventions while a unique decree has been approved related to the matter that regarding its substance, could not legislate about the matter while ignoring the law of invention registing.
In this research, for giving a resolution and recognizing military powers experiences concerning the matter, through referring to patent and national defense regulations of  two countries being studied by the research, we study the registration process of military inventions and the way by which national defense rights are imposed upon economic and moral rights of the owner.
In most countries, due to the importance of the military and invention importance, armament competition, while respecting secrecy rules, to guarantee mentioned matters, the filing process is abandoned as well as granting of the patent to the owner. Though, in Iran, like Turkey and China, the military invention is registered and the patent is granted as well; though, the process of registration is confidential.
In the entire of us, through issuance of the orders such as secrecy or invention abandonment, the owner is excluded from the rights such as exploitation, manufacture and divulgation. In the case of any violation against state's defense law, the infringer will face severe criminal, civil, security measures and administrative sanctions.
Regardless of those limitations, instead, the states, to conserve creativeness in inventor and promote military construction, have conferred some rights to the owner such as; mandatory use, compensation of suspension of use.
It's recommended that, by special legislation, every matter pertaining to national defense rights, the institute responsible for registration, review manner and filing procedure, limitations and punishment and finally compensation methods be established.