Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Theoretical foundations of the right to protect innovations in the field of therapeutic cloning with regard to the legal systems of Iran and the United States

Articles in Press

Document Type : scientific research paper

Authors
mohammad Rasekh 1
mahsa moshar movahhed 2
Mirghasem Jafarzadeh 3
1 Professor of Law and Philosophy, Shahid Beheshti University and Head of Bio Law and Ethics Department, Avicenna Research Institute
2 PhD in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/law.2025.2070546.1702
Abstract
Therapeutic cloning is a new method in the field of biotechnology and medical sciences that has led to the emergence of novel fields in the field of treating intractable human diseases. These fields could not have been achieved except through the innovations of scientists and researchers active in this field. These inventions are the fruit of the intellectual efforts of scientists and are considered one of the types of property that can be protected in the system of rights. In fact, the right to protect inventions in the field of therapeutic cloning is a claim right, the violation of which will violate the human dignity and moral agency of the right holder. Therefore, the institution of rights can protect this claim through legal and supportive mechanisms - as will be mentioned in the legal systems of Iran and the United States in this context - to not only prevent the distortion of one of the protectable rights, Rather, in this way, some of the suffering of humanity can be alleviated by opening new doors in methods and processes related to therapeutic cloning, by increasing the private sector's incentive to invest in supporting the innovations of scientists in this field. Of course, in order to strike a balance between the necessity of maintaining an incentive system to protect property rights over the results of innovations in the field of therapeutic simulation and providing a platform for the crystallization of new innovations in related fields - which are in a way a continuation of the chain of previous innovations and an upgrade of previous creations - the level of support of the legal system must be determined in such a way that, on the one hand, the incentive for the emergence of innovations at upstream levels is increased and, on the other hand, the potential for suppressing innovation at downstream levels is reduced.
Keywords
tragedy of the commons
innovative competition
human commodification
public goods
common heritage of humanity
incentive system
prospect theory

Subjects

1. Beaks, Brian, (2016) "The Culture of Legal Theory", Rasek, Mohammad translation, Tehran: Ney Publishing. (in persion)
2. Habiba, Saeed, Salehifar, Alireza, (2025) "A Comprative Study between the Iranian, Canadianm and European Union Legal Systems on Taxation of Income from Intellectual Properties", Journal of Research and Development in Comprative Law, Vol.8, No.27,pp. 145-170. (in persion)
3. Dadgar, Yadollah, Ghafar Zadeh, Mirghasem, BagherSad, Mohammad Ali, (2016) "Economic Analysis of Copyright: Evaluation of Efficiency and Balance in Copyright System", The Judiciary Law Journalm, Vol.80, Issue 93, N.93, pp.87-110. (in persion)
4. Rasekh, Mohammad, Taskhiri, Maedeh, Eskandari, Alireza, Ameri, Faezeh, (2019) "The Moral and Rights", Legal Research,Vol.22, N.87,pp.19-48. (in persion)
5. Rasekh, Mohammad, (2004) "Biotechnology and human: issues and Perspectives", Legal Research Quarterly, Vol.7, N.40, pp.11-92. (in persion)
6. Rasekh, Mohammad, Khodaparast, Amir Hosein, (2007), "A Right to Know one's Biological Patent", Journal of Reproduction & Infertility, Vol.8 , N.3, pp.247-258. (in persion)
7. Rasek, Mohammad, (2017) “Theory of Right, in Right and Expediency: Essays in the Philosophy of Law”, Philosophy of Right and Philosophy of Value, Vol.2, Tehran: Ney Publishing. (in persion)
8. Rasekh, Mohammad, Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem, Moshar Movahhed, Mahsa, (2025) "Comparative Law of Protection of therapSeutic cloning innovations: United States and Iran", Journal Comparative Public Law, Vol.2, N.5, pp.81-104. (in persion)
9. Rasekh, Mohammad, Ameri, Faezeh, "Registration and Disclosure of Information of Gamete and Embryo Donors under the Public Health Legal System", Journal of Research and Development in Public Law, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2025,pp. 278-318.  doi: 10.22034/jrpl.2025.2052251.1133 (in persion)
10. Jafarzadeh Mirghasem, Omrani Erfan, (2025) "Ethical Challenges of Patentability of Medical Methods", Special Issue of Intellectual Property Law, Vol.19, N.60, pp.47-64. (in persion)
11. Jafarzadeh Mirghasem, Omrani Erfan, Ghari Seyyed Fatemi Seyed Mohammad, (2025), "Notion of Diagnostic Methods in Patent Law in the Light of Right to Health", Vol.19, N.60, pp.151-176. (in persion)
12. Farhang, Manouchehr, (1975) "Dictionary of Economic Sciences: English to Persian", Tehran: Neel Publishing.
13. Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad, (2002), "Biotechnology in the Mirror of Moral Philosophy", Journal of Reproduction & Infertility,  N.4, pp.55-72. (in persion)
 
14. Sadeghi, Mahmood, (2005), "Ethical Challenges of Biotechnological Patents", Modarres Human Sciences,  Vol.9, N.3, pp.87-118. (in persion)
15. Moshar Movahhed, Mahsa , Rasekh, Mohammad, Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem, Seyed Fatemi, Mohammad (2025), Evaluation of the Bases of Permission and Prohibition of Therapeutic Cloning in Iran and the United States of America, Legal Research Quarterly, Vol.28, N.109, pp.1-18. (in persion)
16. Moshar Movahhed, Mahsa , Rasekh, Mohammad, Jafarzadeh, Mirghasem, Seyed Fatemi, Mohammad (2023), The legal system governing the ownership of cells used in therapeutic cloning and stem cells derived from It, Journal of Legal Research, Vol.22, N.55, pp.7-47. (in persion)
17. Annas, George J., (1984) “Surrogate Embryo Transfer: The Perils of Patenting”, Hastings Center Report, vol.14, No.3, pp.6-25.
18. Arrow, Kenneth J., (1962) “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton University Press, pp.609-626.
19. Burch, Gregory F., (1987) “Ethical Considerations in the Patenting of Medical Processes”, Texas Law Review, vol.65, pp.1139-1171.
20. Burk, Dan, (2012) “Law and Economics of Intellectual Property: In Search of First Principles”, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 8, pp.397-414.
21. Burk, Dan, Lemley, Mark, (2009) “The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It”, The University of Chicago Press.
22. Baxter, William, (1966) “Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis”, The Yale Law Journal Vol. 76, No. 2, pp.267-370.
23. Demaine, Linda J., Fellmeth, Aaron Xavier, (2002) “Reinventing the Double Helix: A Novel and Nonobvious Reconceptualization of the Biotechnology Patent”, Stanford Law Review, vol.55, pp.303-462.
24. Fendrick, Sarah E, Zuhn, Jr, Donald L, (2015) “Patentability of Stem Cells in the United States”, Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, vol.5, no.12, pp.20-65.
25. Freilich, Janet, (2022), “Paths to Downstream Innovation” UC Davis Law Review, vol.55, no.4, pp.2209-2270.
26. Heller, Michael A., (2008) “The Grid Lock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives”, Basic Books.
27. Heller, Michael A., Salzman, James, (2021) “Mine!: How the Hidden Rules of Ownership Control Our Lives”, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
28. Heller, Michael A., Eisenberg, Rebecca S., (1998) “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research”, Science, Vol. 280, pp. 698-701.
29. Heller, Michael A, (1998) “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets”, Harvard Law Review, vol.111, pp. 621-688.
30. Heller, Michael A, (2013) “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: A Concise Introduction and Lexicon”, The Modern Law Review, vol.76, pp. 6-25.
31. Kant, Immanuel, (1785), “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Moral”, 1st edition, United Stated, Heckett Publishing.
32. Karshtedt, Dmitry, (2015) “The Completeness Requirement in Patent Law” Boston College Law Review, vol. 56, Issue.3, pp. 949-1012.
33. Karjala, Dennis S., (2006) “Biotech Patents and Indigenous Peoples”, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp.483-527.
34. Korobkin, Russell, Munzer, Stephen, 2006. “Stem cell research and the law”, Research Paper No. 06-05, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, pp.1-111.
35. Kitch, Edmund, (1977) “The Nature and Function of the Patent System”, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.265-290.
36. Ko, Yusing, (1992) “An Economic Analysis of Biotechnology Patent Protection”, The Yale Law Journal, vol.102, pp.777-804.
37. Lemley, Mark, (2005) “Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding”, Texas Law Review, vol.83, no.4, pp.1031-1075.
38. Lemley, Mark, (1997) “The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law”, Texas Law Review, vol.75, no.5, pp. 989-1093.
39. Lemley, Mark, Burk, Dan, (2003) “Policy Levers in Patent Law”, Virginia Law Review, vol.89, pp.1575-1696.
40. Merges, Robert, (1988) “Intellectual Property in Higher Life Forms: The Patent System and Controversial Technologies”, Maryland Law Review, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp.1051-1075.
41. Merges, Robert, Nelson, Richard, (1990) “On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope”, Columbia Law Review, vol. 90, No. 4, pp.839-916, available at: DOI:10.2307/1122920
42. McGee, John S., (1966) “Patent Exploitation: Some Economic and Legal Problems”, The Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 9, pp.135-162.
43. Posner, Richard A., (2005) “Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 2, pp.57-73.
44. Salzberger, Eli M. (2011), “The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property”, Review of Law & Economics, vol.7, no.2, pp. 440-489.
45. Seymore, Sean B, (2021) “The Research Patent”, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 74, no.1, pp.143-186.
46. Valkonen, Sami J., White, Lawrence J., (2007), “An Economic Model for the Incentive/Access Paradigm of Copyright Propertization: An Argument in Support of the Orphan Works Act”, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, Vol.29, N.3, pp.15-66.
Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 01 December 2025