虽然有animal patent（动物专利）一词，但该专利备受争议，许多国家禁止动物专利，动物专利到底是什么，又为什么备受争议呢？具体可参考外网的一篇文章（文章来源：https://www.animallawsection.org/animal-patents/）。

ANIMAL PATENTS – RIGHT OR WRONG?

It may seem strange and it is definitely controversial, but the United States is one of a select few countries that will grant a patent on an animal, such as a mouse or a dog. Should the United States grant patents on animals? Opponents argue that granting animal patents is immoral and unethical, while proponents argue that animal patents stimulate innovation and enhance research related to humanitarian problems. Hence, a debate rages on.

What Is an Animal Patent?

Patents may be obtained for non-naturally occurring animals. This is not to say that you can patent your mixed breed dog or cat, or that you can patent an improved dairy cow or a pig created through years of selective breeding. A plant or animal that can be found in the wild is not patentable.[1] Patentable animals are limited to those that have been engineered by humans, and thus do not exist in the wild. These animals are commonly referred to as “transgenic” animals because their genome has been manipulated with genes or DNA from other animals or humans.[2] Scientists manipulate these animals to exhibit characteristics that are desired for research or experimentation.

One of the most famous transgenic animals is the Harvard “oncomouse.” Researchers at Harvard genetically engineered a mouse that was highly susceptible to cancer for use in cancer research.[3] In 1988, the United States Patent Office granted a patent on the oncomouse, which sparked a heated debate over the patenting of transgenic mammals. Pro-patenting groups argue that patent protection is necessary to stimulate funding of the research needed to develop medical breakthroughs, while anti-patenting groups argue that the patenting of animals leads to their suffering and exploitation. Since the oncomouse patent was granted, over 660 patents have been issued for transgenic animals such as pigs, rabbits, dogs, cattle, and mice.[4] Patents have been obtained for transgenic animals that help to fight diseases such as Parkinson’s and the HIV virus.[5]

Who Grants Animal Patents?

Many countries do not allow the patenting of animals. When the Canadian patent for the Harvard oncomouse reached the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002, the court ruled that higher life forms, such as mammals, are not patentable.[6] Other countries such as Belarus, Brazil, China, Denmark, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Russia, and Thailand agree with Canada and prohibit animal patents.[7] However, in addition to the United States, the European Patent Office, United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan grant animal patents.[8]   

The United States patent system has two noteworthy restrictions related to the availability of animal patents: (1) a utility restriction that the invention be useful or beneficial to society, and (2) a moral restriction prohibiting patents on human/animal chimeras.[9] Generally, patents on transgenic animals satisfy the utility restriction because they are used for beneficial research, although inventions directly related to humans are excluded from patent protection. The European Patent system has additional exclusions for inventions that are contrary to public policy and morality. Under this regime, non-technological concerns, such as the well-being of animals, ethical consequences, and environmental risks, are considered during the patent process.[10] Furthermore, in deciding whether to grant an animal patent, the European Patent system weighs the benefits to humanity derived from the invention against the suffering of the corresponding animals.[11] Several groups feel that these additional non-technological concerns should be adopted in the United States.

The Great Debate Over Animal Patents

There are numerous groups that oppose animal patents, including the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF), and PatentWatch. These groups argue that “animal patents provide an incentive to harm animals for economic gain.”[12] The manipulation of these animals leads to their suffering and exploitation, they argue, especially for animals that are engineered to have a defect or malady that enhances its research value. As an example of this exploitation, opponents point to: (1) a patent for creating rabbits with a mutation of the eyes that are used for research on human eyes, and (2) a patent for producing beagles with weakened immune systems that are used for research on infections of the lungs. Opponents urge that the mutations of these animals and the corresponding research evidence their suffering and exploitation. Overall, the opponents of animal patents feel that the engineering of animals is immoral and unethical, and that granting patent rights for transgenic animals promotes this practice.

The proponents of animal patents, including research institutions and biotechnology companies, argue that animal patents “facilitate the development of more efficient food sources and better human disease models, increase productivity, and yield other significant benefits.”[13] Patents enable investors and companies to risk resources and capital on research and development for the hope of obtaining a patent and the corresponding monopoly. This provides the necessary incentive to innovate. For example, the Harvard oncomouse was created to further cancer research in humans, and other genetically engineered animals are used to produce beneficial drugs or medications.[14] Supporters of animal patents admit that there are moral issues involved, but they believe that the greater good is served by promoting research to solve social and medical problems.[15] 

However, the patent system may not be the proper vehicle to address the concerns animal patent opponents have about animal suffering. A patent for a transgenic animal provides a relatively brief monopoly for the patent owner (approximately 20 years), but this may not be the main incentive for experimenting with transgenic animals. Research institutions and corporations use transgenic animals to research treatments and medications that will benefit society, and transgenic animals that exhibit desired characteristics improve the efficiency and quality of this research. The engineering of transgenic animals will likely continue with or without patent protection. Moreover, at this time, Congressional action would be required to alter the law concerning the patenting of transgenic animals. As a result, new laws regarding the control and protection of transgenic animals may provide a better way to address the prevention of animal suffering.  

[1] See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) (“[T]he laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable.” (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)).

[2] “Bioethics and Patent Law: The Case of the Oncomouse,” WIPO Magazine (2006), http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/03/article_0006.html (last visited April 13, 2011).

[3] See U.S. Patent No. 4,736,866 (filed June 22, 1984) (widely known as the first patent for a “Transgenic Non-Human Mammal”).

[4] See “USPTO Accepts Challenge on Legality of Animal Patents,” American Anti-Vivisection Society (2007), http://www.stopanimalpatents.org/images/pressrelease_rabbit_challenge_accepted.pdf (last visited April 13, 2011).

[5] See, e.g., U.S. Patent 7,550,649 (filed Oct. 28, 2004) (claiming a transgenic mouse that is a model for Parkinson’s disease); U.S. Patent 5,574,206 (filed Aug. 24, 1994) (claiming a transgenic mouse carrying a transgene that expresses non-infectious HIV RNA). 

[6] “Bioethics and Patent Law: The Case of the Oncomouse,” WIPO Magazine (2006), http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/03/article_0006.html (last visited April 13, 2011).

[7] Stop Animal Patents FAQ, http://www.stopanimalpatents.org/faq.html (last visited April 13, 2011).

[8] Id.

[9] Jerzy Koopman, “The Patentability of Transgenic Animals in the United States of America and the European Union: A Proposal for Harmonization,” 13 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 103, 179-181 (2002).

[10] See id. at 181.

[11] See id.

[12] See “USPTO Accepts Challenge on Legality of Animal Patents,” American Anti-Vivisection Society (2007), http://www.stopanimalpatents.org/images/pressrelease_rabbit_challenge_accepted.pdf (last visited April 13, 2011).

[13] David Manspeizer, “The Cheshire Cat, the March Hare, the Harvard Mouse: Animal Patents Open up a New, Genetically-Engineered Wonderland,” 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 417, 455 (1991).

[14] See id. at 426-28.

[15] See id. at 455.

参考译文（译文为DeepL翻译后，笔者译后编辑）

动物专利--对还是错？

看起来很奇怪，而且肯定有争议，但美国是少数几个会对动物（如老鼠或狗）授予专利的国家之一。 美国应该授予动物专利吗？ 反对者认为，授予动物专利是不道德的、不符合伦理的，而支持者则认为，动物专利可以刺激创新，加强与人道主义问题有关的研究。因此，争论不休。

什么是动物专利？

可以为非自然发生的动物获得专利。 这并不是说你可以为你的混种狗或猫申请专利，也不是说你可以为经过多年选择性育种的改良乳牛或猪申请专利。 在野外可以找到的植物或动物是不能申请专利的。[1] 可申请专利的动物仅限于那些由人类设计的，因此不存在于野外的动物。 这些动物通常被称为 "转基因 "动物，因为它们的基因组已经被其他动物或人类的基因或DNA所操纵。

最著名的转基因动物之一是哈佛大学的 "oncomouse"。 哈佛大学的研究人员对一种极易患癌的小鼠进行了遗传工程，以用于癌症研究。 [3] 1988年，美国专利局授予了oncomouse的专利，这引发了一场关于转基因哺乳动物专利的激烈辩论。 支持专利的团体认为，为了刺激开发医学突破所需的研究资金，专利保护是必要的，而反对专利的团体则认为，为动物申请专利会导致它们遭受痛苦和剥削。 自oncomouse专利被授予以来，已经有超过660项转基因动物的专利被授予，如猪、兔、狗、牛和小鼠。[4] 转基因动物获得的专利有助于对抗帕金森病和HIV病毒等疾病。

谁批准了动物专利？

许多国家不允许为动物申请专利。 2002年，当加拿大的哈佛oncomouse专利案进入加拿大最高法院时，法院裁定哺乳动物等高等生命形式不能获得专利。[6] 其他国家如白俄罗斯、巴西、中国、丹麦、印度、爱尔兰、荷兰、挪威、菲律宾、俄罗斯和泰国同意加拿大的意见，禁止动物专利。[7] 然而，除美国外，欧洲专利局、英国、澳大利亚和日本也授予动物专利。  

美国的专利制度有两个值得注意的限制，与动物专利的可用性有关： (1) 实用性限制，即发明必须对社会有用或有益；(2) 道德性限制，即禁止为人类/动物嵌合体申请专利。[9] 一般来说，转基因动物的专利符合实用性限制，因为它们被用于有益的研究，尽管与人类直接相关的发明被排除在专利保护之外。 欧洲专利制度对违反公共政策和道德的发明有额外的排除规定。 此外，在决定是否授予动物专利时，欧洲专利制度会权衡从发明中获得的人类利益与相应动物的痛苦。 [11] 一些团体认为，美国应采用这些额外的非技术性关注。

关于动物专利的大辩论

有许多团体反对动物专利，包括美国反活体解剖协会（AAVS）、替代研究与发展基金会（ARDF）和专利观察组织。 这些团体认为，"动物专利提供了为经济利益而伤害动物的动机。"[12] 他们认为，对这些动物的操纵导致了它们的痛苦和剥削，尤其是对那些被设计成有缺陷或弊病的动物来说，它们的研究价值得到了提升。 作为这种剥削的一个例子，反对者指出 (1)一项制造眼睛变异的兔子的专利，该兔子被用于研究人类的眼睛；(2)一项制造免疫系统变弱的猎犬的专利，该猎犬被用于研究肺部的感染。 反对者敦促说，这些动物的变异和相应的研究证明了它们的痛苦和剥削。 总的来说，动物专利的反对者认为，动物工程是不道德的，也是不符合伦理的，而为转基因动物授予专利权则会促进这种做法。

动物专利的支持者，包括研究机构和生物技术公司，认为动物专利 "有利于开发更有效的食物来源和更好的人类疾病模型，提高生产力，并产生其他重大效益。"[13] 专利使投资者和公司能够将资源和资本用于研究和开发，希望能够获得专利和相应的垄断权。 这就为创新提供了必要的激励措施。 例如，哈佛大学的oncomouse是为了推动人类的癌症研究而创造的，其他的基因工程动物也被用来生产有益的药物或药品。[14] 动物专利的支持者承认，这涉及到道德问题，但他们认为，通过促进解决社会和医疗问题的研究，可以达到更大的利益。

然而，专利制度可能不是解决动物专利反对者对动物痛苦的担忧的适当工具。 转基因动物的专利为专利权人提供了相对短暂的垄断权（大约20年），但这可能不是用转基因动物做实验的主要动力。 研究机构和公司利用转基因动物来研究有利于社会的治疗方法和药物，而表现出所需特征的转基因动物可以提高这种研究的效率和质量。 无论是否有专利保护，转基因动物的工程都可能继续进行。 此外，在这个时候，需要国会采取行动来改变有关转基因动物专利的法律。 因此，有关控制和保护转基因动物的新法律可能会提供一个更好的方法来解决防止动物的痛苦。

以上。