The patentability of non-physical inventions : lessons from the United States

Patent systems around the world are being pressed to recognise and protect challengingly new and exciting subject matter in order to keep pace with the rapid technological advancement of our age and the fact we are moving into the era of the ‘knowledge economy’. This rapid development and pressure to expand the bounds of what has traditionally been recognised as patentable subject matter has created uncertainty regarding what it is that the patent system is actually supposed to protect. Among other things, the patent system has had to contend with uncertainty surrounding claims to horticultural and agricultural methods, artificial living micro-organisms, methods of treating the human body, computer software and business methods. The contentious issue of the moment is one at whose heart lies the important distinction between what is a mere abstract idea and what is properly an invention deserving of the monopoly protection afforded by a patent. That question is whether purely intangible inventions, being methods that do not involve a physical aspect or effect or cause a physical transformation of matter, constitute patentable subject matter. This paper goes some way to addressing these uncertainties by considering how the Australian approach to the question can be informed by developments arising in the United States of America, and canvassing some of the possible lessons we in Australia might learn from the approaches taken thus far in the United States.

Faculty and employee ownership of inventions in Australia

A recent decision by the Australian High Court means that, unless faculty are bound by an assignment or intellectual property (IP) policy, they may own inventions resulting from their research. Thirty years after its introduction, the US Bayh-Dole Act, which vests ownership of employee inventions in the employer university or research organization, has become a model for commercialization around the world. In Australia, despite recommendations that a Bayh-Dole style regime be adopted, the recent decision in University of Western Australia (UWA) v Gray1 has moved the default legal position in a diametrically opposite direction. A key focus of the debate was whether faculty’s duty to carry out research also encompasses a duty to invent. Late last year, the Full Federal Court confirmed a lower court ruling that it does not, and this year the High Court refused leave to appeal (denied certiorari). Thus, Gray stands as Australia’s most faculty-friendly authority to date.

Bilski v Kappos : The United States Supreme Court delivers mixed views on patenting non-physical inventions and business methods

The United States Supreme Court has handed down a once in a generation patent law decision that will have important ramifications for the patentability of non-physical methods, both internationally and in Australia. In Bilski v Kappos, the Supreme Court considered whether an invention must either be tied to a machine or apparatus, or transform an article into a different state or thing to be patentable. It also considered for the first time whether business methods are patentable subject matter. The decision will be of particular interest to practitioners who followed the litigation in Grant v Commissioner of Patents, a Federal Court decision in which a Brisbane-based inventor was denied a patent over a method of protecting an asset from the claims of creditors.

A fork in the Australian road? Ownership of patented employee inventions

Employee ownership of inventions is a complex matter in modern R&D involving multiple parties with diverse interests. Presently, Australian courts are struggling to reach equitable results in light of precedent. This article examines recent Australian, American and English decisions that attempt to balance the variables equitably for insights into potential Australian reform.

QUT Library advances the use of open public tools to navigate genetic inventions and builds research networks

Many emerging economies are dangling the patent system to stimulate bio-technological innovations with the ultimate premise that these will improve their economic and social growth. The patent system mandates full disclosure of the patented invention in exchange of a temporary exclusive patent right. Recently, however, patent offices have fallen short of complying with such a mandate, especially for genetic inventions. Most patent offices provide only static information about disclosed patent sequences and even some do not keep track of the sequence listing data in their own database. The successful partnership of QUT Library and Cambia exemplifies advocacy in Open Access, Open Innovation and User Participation. The library extends its services to various departments within the university, builds and encourages research networks to complement skills needed to make a contribution in the real world.

After the gold rush: Patent law and biological inventions

In response to scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology, the development of new technologies, and the demands of a hungry capitalist marketplace, patent law has expanded to accommodate a range of biological inventions. There has been much academic and public debate as to whether gene patents have a positive impact upon research and development, health-care, and the protection of the environment. In a satire of prevailing patenting practices, the English poet and part-time casino waitress, Donna MacLean, sought a patent application - GB0000180.0 - in respect of herself. She explained that she had satisfied the usual patent criteria - in that she was novel, inventive, and useful: It has taken 30 years of hard labor for me to discover and invent myself, and now I wish to protect my invention from unauthorized exploitation, genetic or otherwise. I am new: I have led a private existence and I have not made the invention of myself public. I am not obvious (2000: 18). MacLean said she had many industrial applications. ’For example, my genes can be used in medical research to extremely profitable ends - I therefore wish to have sole control of my own genetic material' (2000: 18). She observed in an interview: ’There's a kind of unpleasant, grasping, greedy atmosphere at the moment around the mapping of the human genome ... I wanted to see if a human being could protect their own genes in law' (Meek, 2000). This special issue of Law in Context charts a new era in the long-standing debate over biological inventions. In the wake of the expansion of patentable subject matter, there has been great strain placed upon patent criteria - such as ’novelty', ’inventive step', and ’utility'. Furthermore, there has been a new focus upon legal doctrines which facilitate access to patented inventions - like the defence of experimental use, the ’Bolar' exception, patent pooling, and compulsory licensing. There has been a concerted effort to renew patent law with an infusion of ethical principles dealing with informed consent and benefit sharing. There has also been a backlash against the commercialisation of biological inventions, and a call by some activists for the abolition of patents on genetic inventions. This collection considers a wide range of biological inventions - ranging from micro-organisms, plants and flowers and transgenic animals to genes, express sequence tags, and research tools, as well as genetic diagnostic tests and pharmaceutical drugs. It is thus an important corrective to much policy work, which has been limited in its purview to merely gene patents and biomedical research. This collection compares and contrasts the various approaches of a number of jurisdictions to the legal problems in respect of biological inventions. In particular, it looks at the complexities of the 1998 European Union Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, as well as decisions of member states, such as the Netherlands, and peripheral states, like Iceland. The edition considers US jurisprudence on patent law and policy, as well as recent developments in Canada. It also focuses upon recent developments in Australia - especially in the wake of parallel policy inquiries into gene patents and access to genetic resources.

Genentech and the stolen gene: Patent law and pioneer inventions

This paper evaluates the litigation over the biotechnology patent dispute between the University of California and Genentech. First it outlines the scientific work behind the cloning of the human growth hormone, and looks at the patent office, and its treatment of biotechnological inventions. Second, it considers the court room dispute, and the legal case of the University of California and the biotechnology company in this dispute. Finally, it considers the implications of this dispute for policy reform in respect of patent law and biotechnology.

Intellectual Property and Biotechnology: Biological Inventions

This book documents and evaluates the dramatic expansion of intellectual property law to accommodate various forms of biotechnology from micro-organisms, plants, and animals to human genes and stem cells. It makes a unique theoretical contribution to the controversial public debate over the commercialization of biological inventions. The author also considers the contradictions between the Supreme Court of Canada rulings in respect of the Harvard oncomouse, and genetically modified canola. He explores law, policy, and practice in both Australia and New Zealand in respect to gene patents and non-coding DNA. This study charts the rebellion against the European Union Biotechnology Directive – particularly in respect of Myriad Genetics’ BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents, and stem cell patent applications. The book also considers whether patent law will accommodate frontier technologies – such as bioinformatics, haplotype mapping, proteomics, pharmacogenomics, and nanotechnology. Intellectual Property and Biotechnology will be of prime interest to lawyers and patent attorneys, scientists and researchers, business managers and technology transfer specialists.

Patent law and biological inventions

In response to scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology, the development of new technologies, and the demands of a hungry capitalist marketplace, patent law has expanded to accommodate a range of biological inventions. There has been much academic and public debate as to whether gene patents have a positive impact upon research and development, health-care, and the protection of the environment. In a satire of prevailing patenting practices, the English poet and part-time casino waitress, Donna MacLean, sought a patent application - GB0000180.0 - in respect of herself. She explained that she had satisfied the usual patent criteria - in that she was novel, inventive, and useful: It has taken 30 years of hard labor for me to discover and invent myself, and now I wish to protect my invention from unauthorized exploitation, genetic or otherwise. I am new: I have led a private existence and I have not made the invention of myself public. I am not obvious (2000: 18). MacLean said she had many industrial applications. 'For example, my genes can be used in medical research to extremely profitable ends - I therefore wish to have sole control of my own genetic material' (2000: 18). She observed in an interview: 'There's a kind of unpleasant, grasping, greedy atmosphere at the moment around the mapping of the human genome ... I wanted to see if a human being could protect their own genes in law' (Meek, 2000). This special issue of Law in Context charts a new era in the long-standing debate over biological inventions. In the wake of the expansion of patentable subject matter, there has been great strain placed upon patent criteria - such as 'novelty', 'inventive step', and 'utility'. Furthermore, there has been a new focus upon legal doctrines which facilitate access to patented inventions - like the defence of experimental use, the 'Bolar' exception, patent pooling, and compulsory licensing. There has been a concerted effort to renew patent law with an infusion of ethical principles dealing with informed consent and benefit sharing. There has also been a backlash against the commercialisation of biological inventions, and a call by some activists for the abolition of patents on genetic inventions. This collection considers a wide range of biological inventions - ranging from micro-organisms, plants and flowers and transgenic animals to genes, express sequence tags, and research tools, as well as genetic diagnostic tests and pharmaceutical drugs. It is thus an important corrective to much policy work, which has been limited in its purview to merely gene patents and biomedical research. This collection compares and contrasts the various approaches of a number of jurisdictions to the legal problems in respect of biological inventions. In particular, it looks at the complexities of the 1998 European Union Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, as well as decisions of member states, such as the Netherlands, and peripheral states, like Iceland. The edition considers US jurisprudence on patent law and policy, as well as recent developments in Canada. It also focuses upon recent developments in Australia - especially in the wake of parallel policy inquiries into gene patents and access to genetic resources.