Golde made many post operative trips to the medical center for regular check ups. In addition to the normal check ups the doctors at the medical centre conducted research on the cells extracted from Moore's body and hoped to benefit commercially from the results of their research. However, this fact about research was not disclosed to Moore by the Doctors. From the research conducted on Moore's cells, a cell line was developed and got patented by Dr. Golde. Later Golde entered into agreement with the Genetic Institute and was the main beneficiary of the commercial exploits. Moore later sued Dr. Golde and other defendants over the issue.
Although the Court discarded Moore's basic claim and ruled that he had no property rights as such or over any money made later on by the defendants by the research conducted and later exploitingg it commercially. It however, said that the defendants were obliged to disclose to Moore the financial angle involved in the cells extracted from Moore's body, so in these circumstances although Moore who had no property rights was free to bring a claim of injuries against the defendants. The decision was given by a bench of Supreme Court of California. Various arguments were forwarded by the counsel for the Plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined them in deatail and reached to a conclusion that the person has no absolute right to the products of his body because they are not unique and further espoused that legislature has formulated laws that stated that forbid patients under some treatment to possess their extracted organs. In this case the plaintiff's spleen was taken out to protect his life from a life threatening situation but the court ruled out that the patient has an right over the spleen after it has been extracted from his body to save his life and under normal circumstances affected organs or body parts have to be disposed or may be used for research for the advancement of the medical profession. The Court feared that by extending property rights to body parts could spell a doom for the medical profession in general as it is a norm that the affected cells or body parts taken out from patient's body are used for research purposes. Moreover, Moore had given his consent too for the procedure. Although, to some extent it can be said that the consent was not informed as the whole procedure may not have been explained to him verbatim and there were some commercial interests involved. But to that he can only sue his Doctor i.e. Mr. Golde but the other defendants have no liability towards him.
Main Issue :
The highlight of this judgment was not to extend the status of property to ill human organs as that would have leaded to a plethora of damage suits and loss to the advancement of medical profession.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASE
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
Brief Facts :
It can be said that this intellectual property law case an landmark case in which the United Court of Appeals decided that