“In recent legal debates, the patentability of AI-generated inventions has been contentious. Historically, only humans were considered inventors, anchored in notions of personhood and intellect. Yet, in a bold move, South Africa and Australia's Federal Court recognised AI, specifically DABUS, as a potential inventor in 2021, defying conventional views. Proponents argue that this accommodates modern innovation trends, while sceptics raise concerns about ownership rights, potential inundation of trivial patents, and diminished human oversight. With patent laws varying globally, the landscape remains dynamic. As AI's role in R&D grows, more countries could re-evaluate their stances, reshaping the intellectual property (IP) sphere.”

The concept of the Unified Patent Court entered the lives of European Patent holders with the UPC Agreement, an international agreement dated February 19, 2013.

The patent and utility model rights, the backbone of incentivizing R&D and innovation, provide their holders with a significant advantage over their competitors and grant an absolute right for a certain period.

Article 85(3)/(c) of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 regulates the Bolar Exemption, which stipulates the exclusion of experimental acts containing the invention subject to the patent from the scope of the patent right, including the licensing of pharmaceuticals and the necessary tests and experiments thereof.

Pandeminin etkisinin azalmaya başladığı ve hayatın yavaş yavaş normal seyrine döndüğü bugünler, Covid-19 pandemisinden çıkarılabilecek derslere bakmak ve olası yeni bir pandemiye karşı gerekli hazırlıkları yapmak için iyi bir dönem.

Since the pandemic seems to lose its impact and life is returning to normal, it may be a good time to look into the lessons learned so far from the Covid-19 pandemic and make necessary preparations against a possible new one.

Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu'nun getirdiği yenilliklere ve uygulamada doğurduğu zorluklara büyük ölçüde uyum sağlandıktan sonra, Türk patent sistemi bu defa da pandemi sonrası meydana gelen birtakım değişikliklere adapte olma sürecine girmiş bulunuyor.

After adapting to the innovations brought by the Intellectual Property Law and the difficulties, it has brought into practice, this time the Turkish patent system has entered the process of adapting to the changes that have occurred after the pandemic.

The determination of evidence is a crucial interim legal protection measure in Turkish law that assists in proving the matter in question. In disputes relating to pharmaceutical patents, the determination of evidence is a prerequisite to benefit from a preliminary injunction. Under the Industrial Property Law No. 6769, judicial authorities can order immediate and effective interim measures to protect evidence related to an alleged infringement. However, access to information is limited for drug patent holders, making it difficult to obtain proof to prove preliminary injunction conditions have been met. Therefore, a court-ordered evidence determination decision is necessary for drug patent holders to benefit from the preliminary injunction institution.

Temporary legal protection in pharmaceutical patent disputes relies on evidence determination to prove a case. Drug patent holders must get a preliminary injunction to keep infringing products off the market because patent rights are limited. Without a court order, infringing drug information is difficult to obtain. Patent holders must establish evidence under Article 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 150/3 of the Industrial Property Law to obtain a preliminary injunction. Different court evidence determination methods can affect pharmaceutical patent disputes.