Draft article 26, if enacted, would require patent applicants to disclose the source of the GR used in their inventions. As drafted and without any knowledge of the
implementing regulations, draft article 26 does not have any operational significance.
Draft article 25 is, however, another matter. Draft article 25 essentially provides that
no patent right shall be granted if “the acquisition and exploitation of said GR are
contrary to relevant laws and regulations of the State.” Draft article 25 is open-ended
and, if enacted, would use the patent law to enforce other laws and regulations of the
State.
Patent laws are designed to facilitate and encourage innovation; not to enforce other
laws and regulations. These other laws and regulations may contain praiseworthy
objectives—for example, the ABIA recognizes the importance to China of the
sustained development of genetic resources. These objectives, however, require the
encouragement of innovation and should be achieved by means that do not have an
adverse impact on patent protection in China. Chinese innovators seeking patents on
inventions based on genetic resources would have no way of knowing, at the time of
patent application, whether their patents might not be revoked for a reason that is not
related to the validity of their patents. That would indeed be unfortunate for the
development of the Chinese biotech sector.

Amendments’ Commendable Purposes
We support the objectives of the GR patent disclosure amendments. They are intended to prevent bio-piracy and the issuance of “bad” patents based on prior art. The ABIA does not defend erroneously issued patents based on prior art. We understand that this has not been a substantial problem in China under the current regime, and, in fact, SIPO officials have confirmed that there is little evidence of such efforts to patent inventions based on prior art in China.

文章起草于26日,如果制定,会需要专利的申请者揭露被用于他们的发明 GR 的来源。 当做起草和没有任何知识那
实现规则, 草稿文章 26 没有任何的操作重要性。
草稿文章 25 然而,是另外的一个物质。 本质上起草文章 25 提供那
没有专利权将被允许如果 " 获得和说的 GR 的开发是
和有关的法律和州的规则相反。" 草稿文章 25 是末端开口的
并且, 如果制定, 会使用专利的法律运行其他的法律和规则那
州。
专利权法律被设计促进并且鼓励改革; 不要再另外地运行
法律和规则。 这些其他的法律和规则可能包含值得称赞的
目的- 举例来说， ABIA 认识对中国的重要那
维持了遗传基因资源的发展。 这些目的，然而，需要那
改革的鼓励而且应该被没有的方法达成一
在中国的在专利的保护方面的不利冲击。 中国改革者寻求专利权在
以遗传基因的资源为基础的发明会没有知道的方法, 在
请准专利申请, 是否他们的专利权不可能被为一个理由撤销是不
对他们的专利权的有效性讲。 那会的确是不幸的对那
中国生化科技部门的发展。

改善的值得赞美目的
我们支援 GR 的目的请准专利揭发改善。 他们想要的是避免生化海盗行为和以之前的艺术为基础的 " 坏的 " 专利权的发行。 ABIA 不错误地防护发行以之前的艺术为基础的专利权。 我们了解，这没有在现在的政权下面的中国是一个实质上的问题,和,事实上， SIPO 官员已经确认有很少的如此努力的证据请准专利在中国以之前的艺术为基础的发明。