1 Introduction

Synthetic biology is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field that combines principles from biology, engineering, and computer science to redesign and construct new biological parts, devices, and systems. This field holds significant promise for addressing some of the most pressing challenges in medicine, energy, and environmental sustainability by enabling the creation of organisms with custom-made functionalities (Lai et al., 2019). The potential applications of synthetic biology are vast, ranging from the production of biofuels and pharmaceuticals to the development of novel materials and environmental sensors (Contreras et al., 2015).

The importance of intellectual property (IP) protection in synthetic biology cannot be overstated (König et al., 2015). Effective IP frameworks are crucial for fostering innovation by providing inventors with the necessary incentives to invest in research and development (Anderson et al., 2012) . However, the unique nature of synthetic biology, which often involves the use of standardized and modular biological parts, presents distinct challenges for traditional IP systems (Bartley et al., 2017). The field's reliance on open-source principles and collaborative efforts further complicates the landscape, as it necessitates a balance between protecting individual innovations and promoting collective progress (Minssen et al., 2015).

This systematic study aims to explore the current status and challenges of intellectual property protection in synthetic biology. By examining the existing literature and expert recommendations, this study seeks to identify key issues and propose potential solutions to enhance IP frameworks in this dynamic field. The scope of the study includes an analysis of the legal, ethical, and practical aspects of IP in synthetic biology, with a focus on how these factors influence innovation and collaboration among researchers and industry stakeholders.

2 Overview of Synthetic Biology

2.1 Definition and key concepts of synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is an interdisciplinary field that combines principles from biology and engineering to design and construct new biological parts, devices, and systems, or to redesign existing biological systems for useful purposes. It aims to make biology a true engineering discipline by creating standardized, modular biological components that can be easily assembled and reassembled in various configurations to achieve desired functions (Clarke and Kitney, 2020). This approach is akin to how electrical engineers use standard circuit components or how computer programmers use modular blocks of code. The field encompasses a wide range of activities, from the synthesis of complex, biologically-based systems that do not exist in nature to the development of artificial metabolic pathways and programmable genomes (Bueso and Tangney, 2017).

2.2 Major applications of synthetic biology

Synthetic biology has a broad spectrum of applications across various fields, including biotechnology, agriculture, and medicine (Minssen et al., 2015). In biotechnology, synthetic biology is used to engineer microbial consortia for the bioproduction of medicines, biofuels, and biomaterials from inexpensive carbon sources. For instance, synthetic pathways have been developed to produce artemisinic acid, a precursor to the antimalarial drug artemisinin, in yeast, which can be adapted for the development of biofuels and other fine chemicals (König et al., 2015). In agriculture, plant synthetic biology is driving advancements in bioenergy and biomaterials, with techniques such as CRISPR and DNA synthesis enabling robust and predictable engineering of plants. In medicine, synthetic biology is being applied to develop closed-loop therapeutic and probiotic delivery systems, as well as biosensing platforms for diagnostic purposes (Brooks and Alper, 2021). The field also holds promise for creating new drugs and therapeutic strategies by leveraging engineered biological systems (Rai and Kumar, 2007).

2.3 The role of synthetic biology in the bioeconomy

Synthetic biology plays a crucial role in the bioeconomy by driving innovation and providing sustainable solutions to global challenges (Church et al., 2014). The field is revolutionizing the biotech industry and is increasingly applied in markets that were previously unthought-of. Start-up companies, particularly in the US and UK, are translating synthetic biology research into commercially viable tools, services, and products, thereby facilitating rapid responses to societal needs and market demands. Health-related biotechnology applications have dominated the commercialization efforts, but there are significant opportunities for the production of bio-derived materials and chemicals, including consumer products. The synthetic biology approach to research and development, characterized by standardization and modularity, is essential for the community-directed evolution of the field and its integration into the bioeconomy. By linking specialists, infrastructure, and ongoing research, synthetic biology is set to transform industrial biotechnology and contribute significantly to sustainable economic growth (Serrano, 2007).

3 Current Intellectual Property Framework in Synthetic Biology

3.1 Existing IP regimes relevant to synthetic biology

The intellectual property (IP) landscape in synthetic biology is multifaceted, encompassing various regimes such as patents and trade secrets. Patents play a crucial role in protecting innovations in synthetic biology, particularly in the development of new chemical production pathways and biotechnological applications. Trade secrets also serve as a significant form of IP protection, especially for proprietary methods and processes that are not disclosed publicly (Schneider, 2012). The complexity of synthetic biology, which often involves the integration of multiple scientific disciplines, necessitates a robust IP framework to safeguard the interests of innovators while promoting collaborative research and development (Carbonell et al., 2016).

3.2 Overview of patent laws and their application to synthetic biology innovations

Patent laws are pivotal in the realm of synthetic biology, providing a legal framework for the protection of novel inventions. The application of patent laws to synthetic biology is characterized by the need to balance innovation with ethical considerations. For instance, the European Patent Convention (EPC) outlines specific exclusions from patent eligibility, such as the boundary between discovery and invention and the ordre public clause, which are particularly relevant to synthetic biology (Jorgenson and Fink, 2022), The U.S. patent system, undergoing significant reforms, also impacts the field by addressing the unique challenges posed by computational biology and bioinformatics. The co-evolution of patent law and technology in synthetic biology highlights the dynamic interplay between legal frameworks and scientific advancements (Contreras et al., 2015).

3.3 Key IP organizations and their roles in synthetic biology (e.g., WIPO, USPTO, EPO)

Key IP organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and the European Patent Office (EPO) play crucial roles in the governance of IP in synthetic biology. WIPO facilitates international cooperation through treaties like the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which streamlines the patent application process across multiple jurisdictions. The USPTO and EPO are instrumental in examining and granting patents, ensuring that synthetic biology innovations meet the requisite criteria for patentability (Fernandez et al., 2015). These organizations also contribute to the development of IP policies that address the unique challenges of synthetic biology, promoting a balanced approach to innovation and public interest (Belt, 2013).

4 Challenges in Patentability of Synthetic Biology Innovations

4.1 Defining the boundaries of patentable subject matter in synthetic biology

The field of synthetic biology blurs the lines between traditional biotechnology and engineering, making it challenging to define what constitutes patentable subject matter. Synthetic biology involves the design, synthesis, and assembly of biological parts, circuits, pathways, cells, and genomes, which can overlap with existing fields such as genetic engineering and systems biology (Carbonell et al., 2016). This convergence complicates the application of traditional patent landscape analysis methods, which may overestimate activity due to the broad use of relevant terms in underlying fields. Additionally, the creation of synthetic organisms with expanded genetic alphabets, such as those developed by Romesberg and colleagues, raises questions about the extent to which artificially created nucleotides can be patented. The need for a clear framework to define patentable subject matter in synthetic biology is critical to avoid legal ambiguities and ensure that innovations are adequately protected.

4.2 Ethical and legal challenges in patenting living organisms and biological parts

Patenting living organisms and biological parts in synthetic biology presents significant ethical and legal challenges. The creation of synthetic pathways for producing commercially relevant compounds, such as artemisinic acid, exemplifies the potential for synthetic biology to revolutionize industries. However, the ethical implications of owning patents on living organisms and their components cannot be ignored. The Myriad decision in the United States, which addressed the patentability of naturally occurring genes, highlights the ongoing debate about the extent to which biological materials can be patented. Furthermore, the development of synthetic biology standards, such as the Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL), underscores the need for policies that balance innovation with ethical considerations. The challenge lies in creating a legal framework that respects both the moral concerns and the commercial interests involved in synthetic biology (Knabel et al., 2015).

4.3 Issues related to novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial applicability

The criteria of novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial applicability are fundamental to patent law but pose unique challenges in the context of synthetic biology. The iterative design/build/test/learn pipeline used in synthetic biology bio-foundries emphasizes the importance of intellectual property (IP) novelty in evaluating new chemical production routes. However, the rapid pace of innovation in synthetic biology can make it difficult to establish the novelty and non-obviousness of inventions. The introduction of a "patentability index" that includes parameters such as novelty, inventive step, and industrial application, along with a responsibility parameter, reflects an attempt to quantify these issues. Additionally, recent case law rulings and legislative statutes have created obstacles for inventors seeking patent protection, causing hesitation in license agreements and delaying the creation of synthetic biology start-ups (Oldham and Hall, 2018). Addressing these issues requires a nuanced understanding of the unique characteristics of synthetic biology innovations and their potential industrial applications.

5 Intellectual Property and Open Science in Synthetic Biology

5.1 The tension between IP protection and open science/open-source movements

The intersection of intellectual property (IP) protection and the open science (OS) movement presents a significant tension within the field of synthetic biology. On one hand, IP protection through patents and other mechanisms is crucial for securing financial returns and fostering innovation by providing exclusive rights to inventors. On the other hand, the OS movement advocates for the free sharing of knowledge and resources to accelerate scientific progress and democratize access to scientific advancements. This dichotomy is evident in the perspectives of stakeholders who perceive a conflict between the restrictive nature of patents and the collaborative ethos of OS. For instance, a study involving faculty members from a major research center in Canada highlighted the importance of balancing autonomy, justice, and culturally safe research practices in the adoption of OS, suggesting that a hybrid OS-IP policy model might be best suited to address these tensions (Nuechterlein et al., 2023). Additionally, the concept of open IP strategies, such as permissive licensing or choosing not to protect IP at all, has been explored in synthetic biology start-ups, indicating a willingness to embrace more open approaches while still recognizing the need for economic returns (Tang et al., 2019).

5.2 Case studies of open-source synthetic biology platforms and their impact on innovation

Several case studies illustrate the impact of open-source platforms in synthetic biology on innovation. For example, synthetic biology start-ups in the UK have been analyzed to understand their IP strategies and their willingness to open up IP in the future. These companies employ a range of IP strategies, from inbound to outbound, and their motivations and impacts are diverse. The study found that while some companies are highly willing to open up their IP, others are more cautious, balancing the need for openness with the protection of their economic interests. Another case study in the bio-pharmaceutical industry revealed how a mix of formal and informal IP protection tools can be used to maintain control over technological solutions while fostering stable R&D collaborations. This approach highlights the strategic role of IP rights in reducing costs and risks associated with technological uncertainty (Toma et al., 2018). These examples demonstrate that open-source platforms can significantly contribute to innovation by promoting collaboration and reducing barriers to entry, although the extent of openness varies depending on the specific context and strategic goals of the organizations involved (Figure 1) (Brooks and Alper, 2021).

Figure 1 Design strategies for outside-the-lab deployment of synthetic biology systems (Brooks and Alper, 2021) Image caption: This Perspective encompasses design strategies for deploying synthetic biology outside-the-lab, which vary based on the particular system type (whole-cell (blue), cell-free (red), biotic/abiotic interfacing (yellow)) and application space (bioproduction, biosensing, living therapeutics, and probiotic delivery; all in green). Outside-the-lab bioproduction design strategies include whole-cell liquid cultures, cell-free extract reactions, and encapsulation platforms interfacing living cells with materials, with widespread future applications including on-demand production of small molecules and biologic therapeutics as well as regenerable living building materials. Outside-the-lab biosensing design strategies include whole-cell engineered stress-resilient organisms and regenerable biofilms, cell-free CRISPR/Cas-based sensing platforms, as well as interfacing living cells with novel polymer and electronic systems, with broad future applications including continuous health and hazard monitoring. For bioproduction and biosensing, both whole-cell and cell-free systems are typically interfaced with deployment technologies, such as platform automation and microfluidic liquid handling, to facilitate outside-the-lab usability. Outside-the-lab closed-loop living therapeutics and probiotic delivery design strategies include whole-cell engineered microbes and mammalian cells compatible with the gut and soil microbiomes, as well as interfacing living cells with materials and magnetic systems, with future applications ranging from wound healing to continuous food production on earth and in space (Brooks and Alper, 2021)

Brooks et al. (2021) presented various strategies for deploying synthetic biology systems outside the lab, focusing on different system types such as whole-cell, cell-free, and biotic/abiotic interfacing. These strategies are designed to address a wide range of applications, including bioproduction, biosensing, and living therapeutics. They explored innovative approaches like on-demand production, continuous health monitoring, and integration with deployment technologies like platform automation. These developments have the potential to revolutionize areas such as small molecule production, biosensing for hazard detection, and the deployment of engineered microbes for therapeutic purposes. Additionally, the study highlighted the future possibilities of these technologies in diverse settings, including wound healing and food production in extreme environments like space. This work underscores the versatility and potential impact of synthetic biology systems beyond traditional laboratory settings, paving the way for broader and more practical applications.

5.3 Balancing IP rights with the need for collaboration and transparency

Balancing IP rights with the need for collaboration and transparency is a critical challenge in synthetic biology. Effective management of IP is essential for sustaining competitive advantage and facilitating outbound open innovation, which involves the inside-out flow of knowledge and technology. A strategic framework for IP management includes defensive, collaborative, and impromptu strategies, each with different implications for innovation performance. Firms with collaborative IP strategies, which emphasize working with other organizations and entering new markets, tend to outperform those with defensive strategies that focus on avoiding knowledge spillovers and building barriers to competition. Moreover, the adoption of open innovation approaches in R&D-intensive firms, such as those in the bio-pharmaceutical industry, underscores the importance of IP rights in maintaining control over technological solutions while benefiting from collaborative efforts. Ultimately, achieving a balance between IP protection and the need for collaboration and transparency requires a nuanced approach that considers the specific needs and goals of the stakeholders involved, as well as the broader context of the scientific and technological landscape (Grimaldi et al., 2021).

6 Case Study: Patent Disputes in CRISPR-Cas9 Technology

6.1 Overview of CRISPR-Cas9 as a breakthrough in synthetic biology

CRISPR-Cas9 technology has revolutionized the field of genetic engineering and synthetic biology (Sharma et al., 2020). Originating from the adaptive immune systems of prokaryotes, CRISPR-Cas9 allows for precise, efficient, and relatively simple genome editing. This technology has broad applications across various fields, including medicine, agriculture, and industrial biotechnology. Its ability to target specific DNA sequences and introduce modifications has made it a foundational tool for research and therapeutic development (Feeney et al., 2018). The simplicity and flexibility of CRISPR-Cas9 have led to its widespread adoption, making it a cornerstone of modern molecular biology (Figure 2) (Lino et al., 2018).

Figure 2 Biology of the type II CRISPR/Cas system (Adopted from Lino et al., 2018) Image caption: (A) Genomic representation of CRISPR/Cas9 along with relevant transcription/translation products. (B) Engineered CRISPR/Cas9 for site-specific gene editing (sgRNA:Cas9). Grey arrows indicate sites of single-stranded nucleotide breaks (Adopted from Lino et al., 2018)

Lino et al. (2018) demonstrated the fundamental mechanisms of the type II CRISPR/Cas9 system, highlighting its role in site-specific gene editing. The study delves into the genomic organization and processing steps that lead to the formation of the mature CRISPR/Cas9 complex, which is crucial for DNA double-strand break (DSB) formation. This process, facilitated by the guide RNA (gRNA), allows the CRISPR/Cas9 system to introduce precise cuts in the DNA at specific locations, enabling targeted gene modifications. The research further emphasizes the potential of engineered CRISPR/Cas9 systems in genome editing, showcasing their ability to create site-specific nucleotide breaks. This precision in gene editing underscores the versatility and power of CRISPR/Cas9 as a tool for genetic engineering, with significant implications for advancements in biotechnology and medicine.

6.2 Key patent disputes and their implications for the field

The rapid advancement and significant potential of CRISPR-Cas9 have led to intense patent disputes, primarily between the University of California, Berkeley, and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. These disputes center around the rights to foundational patents covering the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells. The outcomes of these legal battles have significant implications for the field, influencing who can commercialize CRISPR-based technologies and under what terms (Mali, 2020). The disputes have highlighted the challenges of balancing innovation with intellectual property rights, as well as the need for clear and fair patenting processes to ensure that groundbreaking technologies can be widely used and further developed (Yao et al., 2018).

6.3 Lessons learned from the CRISPR-Cas9 case for future IP protection strategies

The CRISPR-Cas9 patent disputes offer several lessons for future intellectual property protection strategies in synthetic biology. First, they underscore the importance of early and comprehensive patent filings to secure foundational technologies. Second, they highlight the need for collaboration and clear communication between academic institutions and commercial entities to navigate the complex landscape of IP rights effectively. Third, the disputes demonstrate the necessity of developing balanced IP frameworks that promote both innovation and accessibility, ensuring that new technologies can benefit society broadly while providing incentives for continued research and development (Ferreira et al., 2018). These lessons can guide policymakers and stakeholders in creating more effective and equitable IP protection strategies for future biotechnological advancements (Xu and Qi, 2019).

7 Global Perspectives on IP Protection in Synthetic Biology

7.1 Comparison of IP protection strategies across different regions (e.g., US, EU, China)

Intellectual property (IP) protection strategies vary significantly across different regions, reflecting diverse legal frameworks, economic priorities, and cultural attitudes towards innovation. In the United States, the IP system is highly developed, with robust mechanisms for patent protection and enforcement. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) plays a critical role in this system, ensuring that inventors can secure exclusive rights to their innovations, thereby encouraging investment in research and development (Poungjinda et al., 2023). In contrast, the European Union (EU) adopts a more collaborative approach, emphasizing harmonization of IP laws across member states to facilitate a unified market. The European Patent Office (EPO) and the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) are central to this strategy, providing streamlined processes for patent applications and enforcement across the EU (Chiarolla, 2019). China, on the other hand, has been rapidly evolving its IP framework to align with international standards, driven by its ambition to transition from a manufacturing-based economy to an innovation-driven one. The Chinese government has implemented stringent IP laws and established specialized IP courts to enhance enforcement, reflecting its commitment to protecting IP rights and fostering innovation (Kang, 2020).

7.2 Impact of international treaties and agreements on synthetic biology IP

International treaties and agreements play a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of IP protection in synthetic biology. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), is a cornerstone of global IP regulation, setting minimum standards for IP protection that member countries must adhere to Pasechnyk (2022). TRIPS has been instrumental in harmonizing IP laws across different jurisdictions, thereby reducing barriers to international trade and fostering a more predictable environment for innovation. Additionally, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) facilitates international cooperation through treaties such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which simplifies the process of obtaining patent protection in multiple countries. These international frameworks are crucial for synthetic biology, a field characterized by rapid technological advancements and cross-border collaborations. By providing a consistent and transparent IP regime, these treaties help mitigate the risks associated with IP infringement and encourage global investment in synthetic biology research and development (Hao et al., 2020).

7.3 Challenges in harmonizing global IP laws for synthetic biology

Harmonizing global IP laws for synthetic biology presents several challenges, primarily due to the varying levels of economic development, legal traditions, and policy priorities among countries. One significant challenge is the disparity in IP enforcement capabilities, with developing countries often lacking the resources and infrastructure to effectively protect IP rights (Saggi and Ivus, 2020). This can lead to uneven levels of IP protection and create uncertainties for innovators operating in these regions. Another challenge is the need to balance the interests of IP holders with those of the public, particularly in areas such as access to essential medicines and environmental sustainability. The complexity of synthetic biology technologies, which often involve multiple overlapping patents and proprietary biological materials, further complicates the harmonization process. Moreover, ethical and biosafety considerations unique to synthetic biology necessitate the development of specialized IP frameworks that can address these issues without stifling innovation. International cooperation and dialogue are essential to overcoming these challenges, ensuring that IP laws evolve in a manner that supports both innovation and public welfare (Tang et al., 2019).

8 Emerging Trends and Technologies Impacting IP in Synthetic Biology

8.1 The rise of gene editing, synthetic genomes, and other disruptive technologies

The field of synthetic biology is witnessing rapid advancements, particularly in gene editing and the creation of synthetic genomes. Gene editing technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, allow for precise modifications of genetic material, enabling the deletion, replacement, or insertion of genes to achieve desired traits or create entirely new species. These advancements have significantly broadened the scope and depth of genetic modifications, making it possible to engineer organisms with unprecedented precision and efficiency. Additionally, the development of synthetic genomes, which involves constructing entire genomes from scratch, represents a significant leap forward in synthetic biology, offering new possibilities for creating novel organisms with tailored functionalities (Karoui et al., 2019).

8.2 How these technologies are reshaping ip protection strategies

The emergence of these disruptive technologies is reshaping intellectual property (IP) protection strategies in synthetic biology. Traditional IP frameworks, which were designed for more conventional biotechnological innovations, are being challenged by the unique characteristics of synthetic biology. For instance, the complexity and modularity of synthetic gene circuits necessitate new approaches to IP protection, such as encryption and steganography, to safeguard the proprietary designs of these circuits (Lee et al., 2018). Furthermore, the rapid pace of innovation in synthetic biology requires more dynamic and flexible IP strategies. Companies are increasingly adopting open IP strategies, such as permissive licensing, to foster innovation while still protecting their economic interests. This shift towards open innovation is also evident in the bio-pharmaceutical industry, where firms are using a mix of formal and informal IP tools to maintain control over technological solutions during their validation processes (Yu et al., 2021).

8.3 Future directions for ip in the rapidly evolving field of synthetic biology

Looking ahead, the field of synthetic biology will continue to evolve, and so too will the strategies for IP protection. One key area of focus will be the development of more robust biocontainment systems to address biosafety concerns associated with the release of engineered organisms into the environment. Additionally, there will be a need for greater collaboration between social scientists, policymakers, and technologists to ensure that IP frameworks keep pace with technological advancements and address the ethical and security implications of synthetic biology. As synthetic biology continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, it will be crucial to develop IP strategies that not only protect innovations but also promote responsible and sustainable development of the technology. In conclusion, the rise of gene editing, synthetic genomes, and other disruptive technologies is transforming the landscape of synthetic biology and necessitating new approaches to IP protection. By embracing open innovation and developing more sophisticated IP strategies, the field can continue to thrive while addressing the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead (Purcell et al., 2018).

9 Policy and Regulatory Recommendations

9.1 Recommendations for improving IP protection in synthetic biology

To enhance intellectual property (IP) protection in synthetic biology, several measures can be implemented. Firstly, there is a need for a more adaptive and flexible IP framework that can keep pace with the rapid advancements in synthetic biology. This includes updating patent laws to cover new types of biological inventions and ensuring that these laws are harmonized across different jurisdictions to avoid legal discrepancies. Additionally, fostering collaboration between public and private sectors can help in developing comprehensive IP policies that balance innovation with public interest. Implementing robust biosafety and biosecurity measures is also crucial to prevent misuse of synthetic biology technologies, which can be achieved through genetic safeguards and ethical codes of conduct (Lee et al., 2018).

9.2 The role of governments and international organizations in shaping IP policies

Governments and international organizations play a pivotal role in shaping IP policies for synthetic biology. National governments should establish clear regulatory frameworks that support innovation while ensuring public safety and ethical standards. International organizations, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), can facilitate global coordination and harmonization of IP laws, ensuring that synthetic biology advancements benefit all countries equitably. These organizations can also provide platforms for dialogue among stakeholders, including researchers, industry leaders, and policymakers, to address emerging challenges and share best practices (Ferreira et al., 2018).

9.3 Ethical Considerations and the Need for Adaptive IP Frameworks

Ethical considerations are paramount in the development of IP frameworks for synthetic biology. The potential for synthetic biology to impact human health, the environment, and socio-economic structures necessitates a careful and inclusive approach to IP policy-making. Ethical frameworks should ensure that IP protections do not hinder access to essential technologies, especially in low-income countries. Moreover, there is a need for adaptive IP frameworks that can evolve with technological advancements and address new ethical dilemmas as they arise. Engaging ethicists, social scientists, and the public in the policy-making process can help in creating more balanced and socially responsible IP policies. By implementing these recommendations, the field of synthetic biology can continue to thrive while ensuring that IP protections are fair, effective, and ethically sound (Chiarolla, 2019).

10 Concluding Remarks

The current landscape of intellectual property (IP) protection in synthetic biology is multifaceted and evolving. Synthetic biology, with its potential to revolutionize various sectors such as medicine, agriculture, and environmental management, faces unique challenges in IP protection. The field is characterized by rapid technological advancements and the generation of complex biotechnological inventions, which necessitate robust IP frameworks to safeguard innovations. However, the existing IP systems often struggle to keep pace with these advancements, leading to gaps in protection and enforcement. Additionally, the ethical and legal controversies surrounding biotechnological patents further complicate the IP landscape.

One of the primary challenges in IP protection for synthetic biology is the balance between fostering innovation and ensuring public access to biotechnological advancements. The stringent enforcement of IP rights can sometimes hinder the accessibility of essential technologies, particularly in developing countries. Moreover, the lack of harmonized international IP regulations creates barriers for global collaboration and technology transfer. On the other hand, there are significant opportunities to enhance IP protection through the adoption of new technologies such as blockchain for secure and transparent IP management. The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning in IP analytics also presents a promising avenue for improving the efficiency and accuracy of IP data analysis. Furthermore, the concept of open IP strategies, where firms adopt permissive licensing or choose not to protect certain IP, can promote innovation and collaboration within the synthetic biology community.

To address the challenges and leverage the opportunities in IP protection for synthetic biology, continued research and policy development are crucial. There is a need for comprehensive studies to understand the implications of different IP strategies and to develop frameworks that balance innovation with public interest. Policymakers must work towards creating flexible and adaptive IP regulations that can accommodate the rapid advancements in synthetic biology.Global cooperation is also essential to harmonize IP laws and facilitate the international exchange of biotechnological innovations. Collaborative efforts between governments, industry stakeholders, and international organizations can help in developing standardized IP practices and ensuring equitable access to synthetic biology technologies. In conclusion, while the current status of IP protection in synthetic biology presents several challenges, it also offers numerous opportunities for improvement. By fostering continued research, policy innovation, and global cooperation, we can create a more robust and inclusive IP framework that supports the sustainable growth of synthetic biology.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the two anonymous peer reviewers for their thorough review of this study and for their valuable suggestions for improvement.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The author affirms that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Anderson J., Strelkowa N., Stan G., Douglas T., Savulescu J., Barahona M., and Papachristodoulou A., 2012, Engineering and ethical perspectives in synthetic biology, EMBO Reports, 13: 584-590.

https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.81
PMid:22699939 PMCid:PMC3389334

Bartley B., Kim K., Medley J., and Sauro H., 2017, Synthetic biology: engineering living systems from biophysical principles, Biophysical Journal, 112(6): 1050-1058.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2017.02.013
PMid:28355534 PMCid:PMC5376109

Belt H., 2013, Synthetic biology, patenting, health and global justice, Systems and Synthetic Biology, 7(3): 87-98.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-012-9098-7
PMid:24432146 PMCid:PMC3740100

Bera R., 2015, Synthetic biology and intellectual property rights.

https://doi.org/10.5772/59906

Brooks S., and Alper H., 2021, Applications, challenges, and needs for employing synthetic biology beyond the lab, Nature Communications, 12.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21740-0
PMid:33654085 PMCid:PMC7925609

Bueso Y., and Tangney M., 2017, Synthetic biology in the driving seat of the bioeconomy, Trends in Biotechnology, 35(5): 373.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.02.002
PMid:28249675

Carbonell P., Gök A., Shapira P., and Faulon J., 2016, Mapping the patent landscape of synthetic biology for fine chemical production pathways, Microbial Biotechnology, 9: 687-695.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12401
PMid:27489206 PMCid:PMC4993189

Chiarolla C., 2019, Intellectual property from a global environmental law perspective: lessons from patent disclosure requirements for genetic resources and traditional knowledge, Transnational Environmental Law, 8: 503-521.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102519000165

Church G., Elowitz M., Smolke C., Voigt C., and Weiss R., 2014, Realizing the potential of synthetic biology, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 15: 289-294.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3767
PMid:24622617 PMCid:PMC9645560

Clarke L., and Kitney R., 2020, Developing synthetic biology for industrial biotechnology applications, Biochemical Society Transactions, 48: 113-122.

https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20190349
PMid:32077472 PMCid:PMC7054743

Contreras J., Rai A., and Torrance A., 2015, Intellectual property issues and synthetic biology standards, Nature Biotechnology, 33: 24-25.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3107
PMid:25574630

Feeney O., Cockbain J., Morrison M., Diependaele L., Assche K., and Sterckx S., 2018, Patenting foundational technologies: lessons from CRISPR and other core biotechnologies, The American Journal of Bioethics, 18: 36-48.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1531160
PMid:31159699

Fernandez D., Maninang A., Kobayashi S., Bhatia S., and Kraatz C., 2015, Intellectual property protection for bioinformatics and computational biology, 85-95.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16483-0_9

Ferreira R., David F., and Nielsen J., 2018, Advancing biotechnology with CRISPR/Cas9: recent applications and patent landscape, Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 45: 467-480.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-017-2000-6
PMid:29362972

Grimaldi M., Greco M., and Cricelli L., 2021, A framework of intellectual property protection strategies and open innovation, Journal of Business Research, 123: 156-164.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.043

Hao Y., Ba N., Ren S., and Wu H., 2020, How does international technology spillover affect China's carbon emissions? a new perspective through intellectual property protection, Sustainable Production and Consumption.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3811626

Jorgenson L., and Fink C., 2022, WIPO’s contributions to international cooperation on intellectual property, Journal of International Economic Law.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac049

Kang S., 2020, The EU and China in international negotiations on trade-related intellectual property rights - cooperation and challenges, Vietnamese Journal of Legal Sciences, 3: 20-42.

https://doi.org/10.2478/vjls-2021-0002

Karoui M., Hoyos-Flight M., and Fletcher L., 2019, Future trends in synthetic biology - a report, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00175
PMid:31448268 PMCid:PMC6692427

Knabel M., Doering K., and Fernandez D., 2015, Intellectual property protection for synthetic biology, Including Bioinformatics and Computational Intelligence, 380-391.

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6611-5.ch016

König H., Dorado-Morales P., and Porcar M., 2015, Responsibility and intellectual property in synthetic biology, EMBO Reports, 16.

https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541048
PMid:26268525 PMCid:PMC4576974

Lai H., Canavan C., Cameron L., Moore S., Danchenko M., Kuiken T., Sekeyová Z., and Freemont P., 2019, Synthetic biology and the United Nations, Trends in Biotechnology.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.05.011
PMid:31257057

Lee J., Chan C., Slomovic S., and Collins J., 2018, Next-generation biocontainment systems for engineered organisms, Nature Chemical Biology, 14: 530-537.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-018-0056-x
PMid:29769737

Lino C., Harper J., Carney J., and Timlin J., 2018, Delivering CRISPR: a review of the challenges and approaches, Drug Delivery, 25: 1234-1257.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10717544.2018.1474964
PMid:29801422 PMCid:PMC6058482

Mali F., 2020, Is the patent system the way forward with the CRISPR-Cas 9 technology?, Science & Technology Studies.

https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.70114

Minssen T., Rutz B., and Zimmeren E., 2015, Synthetic biology and intellectual property rights: six recommendations, Biotechnology Journal, 10(2): 236-241.

https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201400604
PMid:25676051

Nuechterlein A., Rotenberg A., LeDue J., Pavlidis P., and Illes J., 2023, Open science in play and in tension with patent protections, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 10.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad016
PMid:37484885 PMCid:PMC10357088

Oldham P., and Hall S., 2018, Synthetic biology - mapping the patent landscape, BioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/483826

Pasechnyk O., 2022, International aspects of intellectual property rights protection, Baltic Journal of Economic Studies.

https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2022-8-5-146-157

Poungjinda W., Pathak S., and Bimbilovski I., 2023, Legal protection against patent and intellectual property rights violations amidst COVID-19, Emerging Science Journal.

https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2023-SPER-016

Purcell O., Wang J., Siuti P., and Lu T., 2018, Encryption and steganography of synthetic gene circuits, Nature Communications, 9.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07144-7
PMid:30467337 PMCid:PMC6250736

Rai A., and Kumar S., 2007, Synthetic biology: the intellectual property puzzle, Texas Law Review, 85: 1745.

Saggi K., and Ivus O., 2020, The protection of intellectual property in the global economy, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.444

Schneider I., 2012, To be or not IP? exploring limits within patent law for the constitutionalization of intellectual property rights and the governance of synthetic biology in human health, Revista de derecho y genoma humano = Law and the Human Genome Review, 37: 193-233.

Serrano L., 2007, Synthetic biology: promises and challenges, Molecular Systems Biology, 3.

https://doi.org/10.1038/msb4100202
PMid:18091727 PMCid:PMC2174633

Sharma G., Sharma A., Bhattacharya M., Lee S., and Chakraborty C., 2020, CRISPR-Cas9: a preclinical and clinical perspective for the treatment of human diseases, Molecular Therapy: the Journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.09.028
PMid:33238136 PMCid:PMC7854284

Tang A., Tietze F., and Molloy J., 2019, Openness in intellectual property strategies of synthetic biology start-ups, 2019 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON), 1-6.

https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON.2019.8813740

Toma A., Secundo G., and Passiante G., 2018, Open innovation and intellectual property strategies: empirical evidence from a bio-pharmaceutical case study, Bus. Process. Manag. J., 24: 501-516.

  https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2016-0230

Xu X., and Qi L., 2019, A CRISPR-dCas toolbox for genetic engineering and synthetic biology, Journal of Molecular Biology, 431(1): 34-47.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.06.037
PMid:29958882

Yao R., Liu D., Jia X., Zheng Y., Liu W., and Xiao Y., 2018, CRISPR-Cas9/Cas12a biotechnology and application in bacteria, Synthetic and Systems Biotechnology, 3: 135-149.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.synbio.2018.09.004
PMid:30345399 PMCid:PMC6190536

Yu J., Zhao Y., Feng H., Yu J., and Li T., 2021, Current status and thinking of gene editing technology, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1976.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1976/1/012069