Intellectual Property Rights for 3D Bioprinting in Malaysia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2023.14.2.12Keywords:
Intellectual Property, additive manufacturing, 3D Bioprinting, copyright, patent, trademarkAbstract
Additive manufacturing in the field of tissue engineering has evolved rapidly over the past few decades. 3D bioprinting is an extended
application of additive manufacturing that involves the building of tissue or organ in a layer-by-layer manner using a bioprinter
via instructions from computer graphic software. 3D bioprinting technology offers promise in the transformation of healthcare sectors. Consequently, disputes regarding commercial use of 3D bioprinting, in particular on intellectual property rights will arise. Patent ownership and registration of bioprinting products and processes pose issues of ethics. The copyrighted works of 3D bioprinting software pose risks of copyright infringement. Besides, there is also a question of whether the marks and brand of 3D bioprinters can be protected as trademarks. The main objective of this study is to analyse how existing intellectual property laws in Malaysia can be utilized to protect 3D bioprinting technology intellectual property rights. The qualitative method is employed in this study, in particular, content analysis of journal articles, books, international conventions, directives, statutes and court cases. Semi-structured interviews with two respondents from relevant ministries were conducted to achieve the objectives of this study. Additionally, a comparative study of legal frameworks in the United States and Europe is adopted to examine intellectual property rights on the international stage. The study revealed that 3D bioprinting products and processes are patentable under the Patents
Act 1983; however, ethical and morality issues are challenges in granting protection. Apart from that, copyright can protect computeraided bioprinting design software and programs under the Copyright Act 1987 and the marks and brand of 3D bioprinting products can be protected under the Trademark Act 2019. The findings of this study will expose the potential in commercialization of 3D bioprinting among industry players and propose improvements to the current regulatory framework of 3D bioprinting related to intellectual property rights.
References
Agarwal, R., & Agarwal, P. (2020). 3D bio-printing: Addressing the conundrum of patent eligibility. Ex Gratia Law Journal, 1(3), 256-258.
Althabhawi, N. M., & Zainol, Z. A. (2022). The patent eligibility of 3D bioprinting: Towards a new version of living inventions’ patentability. Biomolecule, 12, 124, 1-14.
Aplin, T., Aplin, T. F., & Davis, J. (2013). Intellectual property law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.
Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., & Johnson, P. (2022). Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
Bauermeister, A. J., Zuriarrain, A., & Newman, M. I. (2016). Three-dimensional printing in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A systematic review. Annual Plastic Surgery, 77(1), 569-576.
Bechthold, L., Fischer, V., Hainzlmaier, A., Hugenroth, D., Kroth, K., Römer, B., & Sitzmann, V. (2015). 3D printing: A qualitative assessment of applications, recent trends and the technology’s future potential. Studien Zum Deutschen Innovations System, (17), 119.
Bechtold, S. (2015). 3D Printing and the intellectual property system. Economic Research Working Paper. No. 28.
Chia, H. N., & Wu, B. M. (2015). Recent advances in 3D Printing of biomaterials. Journal of Biological Engineering, 9(4), 1-14.
Colston, C. (1999). Principles of intellectual property law. Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Croxson, C. H., Ashdown, H. F., & Hobbs, F. R. (2017). GPs’ perceptions of workload in England: A qualitative interview study. British Journal of General Practice, 67(655), 138-147.
Ebrahim, T. Y. (2017). 3D Bioprinting patentable subject matter boundaries. Seattle University Law Review, 41(2), 1–59.
Gao, W., Zhang Y., Ramanujan, D., Ramani K., Chen Y., Williams C. B., Wang C. C. I, Shin Y. C., Zhang S., Zavatteri P. D. (2015). The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in Engineering. Computer Design, 69, 65-89.
Guillemot, F., Souquet A., Catros S. & Guillotin B. (2010). Laser-assisted cell printing: Principle, physical parameters versus cell fate and perspectives in tissue Engineering. Nanomedicine, 2 (5), 507–15.
Grubb, Philip, W. (2004). Patents for chemicals. Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, fundamentals of global law, practice and strategy 4th ed. (Oxford University Press), 14.
Hsiao, J. H. (2018). Patent eligibility of 3D bioprinted organs in Taiwan. Albany Law Journal Science Technology, 28(1).
Hussain, A., Mkpojiogu, E. O. C., Fadzil, N. M., Hassan, N. M. (2017). The UX of Amila pregnancy on mobile device. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1891(020061).
Kwan, C. (2010). Bio-invention and patentability in Malaysia. Quarterly Law Journal, 1(35), 35-60.
Khong, D. W. K., & Mon, S. W. (2023). Artificial Intelligence as a common heritage of mankind. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 14(1), 113–139.
Li, P., & Faulkner, A. (2017). 3D bioprinting regulations: A UK/EU perspective. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 8(2), 441–450.
Li, P. H. (2014). 3D bioprinting technologies: Patents, innovations and access. Law Innovation and Technology, 6(2), 282-304.
MacQueen, H. (2011). Contemporary intellectual property law and policy 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
Majid, M. A. (2018). Ensuring privacy and personal data protection in matters arising from bioprinting: Addressing the human and social context of biomedical informatics in Malaysia. Journal of Information System and Technology Management, 3(10), 1-14.
Majid M. A. (2020). Bioprinting’s introduction within the context of the Convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities and Malaysia’s Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 through the right to science. Societies, 20(40), 1-22.
Malaysian Investment Development Authority (2021, March 3). Empowering manufacturers to adopt 3D Bioprinting. https://www.mida.gov.my/empowering-manufacturers-to-adopt-3d-printing/
Manap, N. A., & Ahamat, H. (2019). Intellectual property protection for SMEs in Malaysia: Issues and challenges. Malaysian Journal of Consumer and Family Economics, 2, 56-72.
Marga F., Jakab K., Khatiwala C., Shepherd B., Dorfman S., Hubbard B. (2012). Toward engineering functional organ modules by additive manufacturing. Biofabrication, 4, 1-20.
Mertz, L. (2013). Dream it, design it, print it in 3-D: What can 3-D printing do for you? IEEE Pulse, 4 (6), 15–21.
Minssen, T.; Mimler, M. (2017). Patenting bioprinting-technologies in the US and Europe—The 5th element in the 3rd dimension. Wolters Kluwer.
Mironov V., Visconti R. P., Kasyanov V., Forgacs G., Drake C. J., Markwald R. R. (2009). Organ printing: Tissue spheroids as building blocks. Biomaterials, 30(21), 64–74.
Mori, A. D., Fernandez, M. P., Blunn, G., Tozzi, G., & Roldo, M. (2018). 3D printing and electrospinning of composite hydrogels for cartilage and bone tissue engineering. Polymers, 10(3), 285-300.
Murphy S. V., & Atala A. (2014). 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. National Biotechnology, 32, 773–85.
Nordin, R., & Abu Bakar, S. S. (2012). Malaysian batik industry: Protecting local batik design by copyright and industrial design laws. International Journal of Business & Society, 13(2), 117-132. Plant Genetic Systems v Greenpeace (T356/93) [1995].
Philip, W. G. (2004). Patents for chemicals. Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, fundamentals of global law. Practice and strategy. Oxford University Press. Re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F. 3d 1333—Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2014. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-institution
Reis, J., Santo, P. E., & Melão, N. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in government services: A systematic literature review. In World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies.
Salehijam, M. (2018). The value of systematic content analysis in legal research. Tilburg Law Review, 23(1) 34–42.
San, T. P. (2020). Intellectual Property Law Malaysia. Sweet & Maxwell.
Shahrubudin N., Koshy P., Alipal, J., Kadir M. H. A., & Lee T. C. (2020). Challenges of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products: A case study of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Heliyon, 6(3), 1-14.
Stim, R. (2001). Intellectual Property, patents, trademarks and copyrights. 2nd ed.: Delmar West Legal Studies, 2001, 2.
Torremans, P. (2019). Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Yoo, S. (2015). 3D-printed biological organs: Medical potential and patenting opportunity. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, 25(5), 507-511.
Varkey M., Dafydd O. V., Paul V. N. V. Z., Anthony A., James J. Y. (2019). Skin bioprinting: The future of burn wound reconstruction. Burns & Trauma, 7(4), 1-12.
Visscher D. O., Farre-Guasch E., Helder M. N., Gibbs S., Forouzanfar T., Van Zuijlen P. P. (2016). Advances in bioprinting technologies for craniofacial reconstruction. Trends Biotechnology, 34(10), 700-710.
Ventola, M. (2014). Medical applications for 3D printing: Current and projected uses, 39(10), 704-711.
Wahab E., Shamsuddin A., Ahmad W. N. K. W., Ahmad N., Wei L. X. (2020). Identifying the future prospect of 3D bioprinting in Malaysia. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(8), 1154-1159.
Whitworth, L. (2016). Comparison of the implementation of statutory patent eligibility requirements applied to gene patents in the European Union, the United States, and Australia. The Journal of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property, 56(44), 450-470.
World Intellectual Property Organisation. (2020, March 1). WIPO Administered Treaties. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/
World Intellectual Property Organisation. (2022). Overview: The TRIPS Agreement. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ trips_e/intel2_e.htm
Xia, Z., Jin, S., Ye, K. (2018). Tissue and organ bioprinting. SLAS Technology, 23(4), 1-20.
Xin, X. (2016). Patent eigibility of 3D-printed organs. American Intellectual Property Law, 44(14), 501-514.
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-09-07Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.
