Incentives for global public health: Patent law and access to essential medicines

This portrait of the global debate over patent law and access to essential medicines focuses on public health concerns about HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, the SARS virus, influenza, and diseases of poverty. The essays explore the diplomatic negotiations and disputes in key international fora, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Drawing upon international trade law, innovation policy, intellectual property law, health law, human rights and philosophy, the authors seek to canvass policy solutions which encourage and reward worthwhile pharmaceutical innovation while ensuring affordable access to advanced medicines. A number of creative policy options are critically assessed, including the development of a Health Impact Fund, prizes for medical innovation, the use of patent pools, open-source drug development and forms of 'creative capitalism'.

Race against time: The export of essential medicines to Rwanda

This article considers the significance of the first export of essential medicines under the WTO General Council Decision 2003. In July 2007, Rwanda became the first country to provide a notification under the WTO General Council Decision 2003 of its intent to import a fixed-dose, triple combination HIV/AIDS drug manufactured by the Canadian generic pharmaceuticalmanufacturer Apotex, Inc. In September 2007, Apotex was granted the first compulsory licence application under Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. This article considers the convoluted and protracted negotiations between the Government of Rwanda, Apotex and three patent holders, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingleheim Canada and Shire BioChemical, Inc. It questions the efficiency of this process. This article considers the review of the Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act 2004 (Canada). It is critical of the refusal of the Conservative Government of Canada to make any amendments to the legislation to improve the cost-effective delivery of essential medicines. This article queries the proposed Hong Kong Amendment to the TRIPS Agreement 1994, given the concerns of the Africa Group. It is submitted that it is undesirable to codify the WTO General Council Decision 2003, given its failure to provide a speedy, efficient and cost-effective delivery of essential medicines.

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

The race to patent the SARS virus: The TRIPS agreement and access to essential medicines

This article considers the race to sequence the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome virus ('the SARS virus') in light of the debate over patent law and access to essential medicines. Part II evaluates the claims of public research institutions in Canada, the United States, and Hong Kong, and commercial companies, to patent rights in respect of the SARS virus. It highlights the dilemma of ’defensive patenting' - the tension between securing private patent rights and facilitating public disclosure of information and research. Part III considers the race to patent the SARS virus in light of wider policy debates over gene patents. It examines the application of such patent criteria as novelty, inventive step, utility, and secret use. It contends that there is a need to reform the patent system to accommodate the global nature of scientific inquiry, the unique nature of genetics, and the pace of technological change. Part IV examines the role played by the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization in dealing with patent law and access to essential medicines. The article contends that there is a need to ensure that the patent system is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to accommodate international research efforts on infectious diseases.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Intellectual property rights and the campaign for access to essential medicines : the advocacy role assumed by Médecins Sans Frontières

Non-governmental organizations and transnational networks have been increasingly successful a t gaining influence within issue areas traditionally controlled by the state. In many instances, non-state actors have been instrumental in forcing issues onto the global agenda, have aided in the development or transformation of global regimes, and have participated in securing state compliance for the adoption of new international norms. This paper argues that, consistent with social constructivist theory, ideas are important in influencing state preferences and change may be possible when certain factors are present. I f non-state actors can influence states, it is meaningful to understand how this happens. This paper focuses on a campaign led by Medecins Sans Frontieres that began in the late 1990s to acquire affordable medicines for patients in developing states that could not afford patented drugs. The campaign reached a measure of success in that member states of the World Trade Organization re-negotiated contested terms and meanings within the trade agreement for intellectual property rights and allowed concessions that would benefit lower income states. What factors contributed to the success of the campaign? And what were the most important factors - the issue, the actors or the mechanisms used?

The right to health, the TRIPS agreement and the public health safeguards to encourage the universal access to essential medicines

The privileges arising from patent protection on pharmaceutical products often prevent the full realization of the right to health, especially in developing countries with scarce resources. This thesis first identifies the international agreements that have established the right to health in international law, obligations and violations associated with it, the problems encountered in the implementation of human rights on the field, compared with the implementation and sanctions associated with economic rights from the World Trade Organization regulatory framework. A comparative study of the legislative frameworks of both developed and developing countries will reveal to what extent Canada, the United States, the European Union, Brazil, India, and South Africa conformed with patent protection exceptions arising from international patent law to protect public health. Finally, the author identifies the crucial indicators that need to be considered in order to assess the conformity of a given approach with the right to health, before he underscores the temporary character of the relevant WTO measures, and the future stakes concerning an increased access to essential medicines.

Safety assessment of essential medicines for elderly people: a bibliographic survey

Certain medicines are considered potentially inappropriate (PIM) for elderly people as they increase the risk of adverse drug events (ADE) and because safer alternative therapies are available on the market. In this context, in order to identify the instruments that assess the quality of medical prescriptions for elderly and to determine which drugs are considered PIM, a bibliographic survey was conducted in PUBMED, LILACS and PAHO databases, in February and March/2010. The search strategy included the use of health descriptors and a manual search in the references cited by selected papers. During the period of data collection, 15 instruments were identified. In 2012, with the publication of the update of Beers criteria, this instrument was included in the study. We identified 163 PIM of 25 therapeutic classes, of which 125 (76.7%) are marketed in Brazil. Of these, 31 (24.8%) are essential medicines (RENAME 2012), of which 13 have safer therapeutic equivalents and 19 (15.2%) are over-the-counter drugs. Data suggest the need for inclusion of safer alternatives for the elderly in the national list of essential medicines and the pharmaceutical care for early detection of ADE in this age group, in order to contribute to the safe use of medicines.

Proposal for the inclusion of misoprostol in the WHO model list of essential medicines

Gynuity

Burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Nepal and the availability and affordability of NCD medicines

Background: Traditionally communicable diseases were the main causes of burden in developing countries like Nepal. In recent years non-communicable diseases (NCDs), mainly cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes mellitus, impose a larger disease burden compared to communicable diseases. Most elements of health and medicine policies in Nepal are still focused on communicable diseases. There is limited evidence about NCDs and NCD medicines in Nepal. Aim: To explore the gap between the burden of NCDs and the availability and affordability of NCD medicines in Nepal. Methods: Biomedical databases like Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and other online sources (including Global Burden of Diseases data) were searched for data on the burden of NCDs in term of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). The Essential Medicines List (EML) of Nepal was compared with World Health Organisation (EML) for inclusion of NCD medicines. Results: In Nepal, NCDs caused nearly 45% of the total 10.5 million DALYs in 2010. CVDs (15.2%), were the leading cause of NCDs burden followed by chronic respiratory diseases (14.7%), cancer (7.3%) and diabetes mellitus (3.2%). One hospital based national survey found that 37% of hospitalised patients had NCDs. Among them, 38% had heart disease followed by COPD (33%) , and diabetes (10%). Most (23 out of 28) non-cancer NCD medicines recommended in WHO-EML were present in Nepal's EML, theoretically indicating good availability. However, it is difficult to say whether they are accessible and affordable due to the lack of adequate data on access and pricing. Conclusion: This study gives some insight into the burden of NCDs. Although NCD medicines are available in Nepal, further research is required to determine whether they are accessible and affordable to the general population.

The effects of copayment policies on adherence to prescription medicines in publicly insured populations

Introduction: Copayments for prescriptions are associated with decreased adherence to medicines resulting in increased health service utilisation, morbidity and mortality. In October 2010 a 50c copayment per prescription item was introduced on the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme in Ireland, the national public health insurance programme for low-income and older people. The copayment was increased to €1.50 per prescription item in January 2013. To date, the impact of these copayments on adherence to prescription medicines on the GMS scheme has not been assessed. Given that the GMS population comprises more than 40% of the Irish population, this presents an important public health problem. The aim of this thesis was to assess the impact of two prescription copayments, 50c and €1.50, on adherence to medicines.Methods: In Chapter 2 the published literature was systematically reviewed with meta-analysis to a) develop evidence on cost-sharing for prescriptions and adherence to medicines and b) develop evidence for an alternative policy option; removal of copayments. The core research question of this thesis was addressed by a large before and after longitudinal study, with comparator group, using the national pharmacy claims database. New users of essential and less-essential medicines were included in the study with sample sizes ranging from 7,007 to 136,111 individuals in different medication groups. Segmented regression was used with generalised estimating equations to allow for correlations between repeated monthly measurements of adherence. A qualitative study involving 24 individuals was conducted to assess patient attitudes towards the 50c copayment policy. The qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated in the discussion chapter of the thesis. The vast majority of the literature on this topic area is generated in North America, therefore a test of generalisability was carried out in Chapter 5 by comparing the impact of two similar copayment interventions on adherence, one in the U.S. and one in Ireland. The method used to measure adherence in Chapters 3 and 5 was validated in Chapter 6. Results: The systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrated an 11% (95% CI 1.09 to 1.14) increased odds of non-adherence when publicly insured populations were exposed to copayments. The second systematic review found moderate but variable improvements in adherence after removal/reduction of copayments in a general population. The core paper of this thesis found that both the 50c and €1.50 copayments on the GMS scheme were associated with larger reductions in adherence to less-essential medicines than essential medicines directly after the implementation of policies. An important exception to this pattern was observed; adherence to anti-depressant medications declined by a larger extent than adherence to other essential medicines after both copayments. The cross country comparison indicated that North American evidence on cost-sharing for prescriptions is not automatically generalisable to the Irish setting. Irish patients had greater immediate decreases of -5.3% (95% CI -6.9 to -3.7) and -2.8% (95% CI -4.9 to -0.7) in adherence to anti-hypertensives and anti-hyperlipidaemic medicines, respectively, directly after the policy changes, relative to their U.S. counterparts. In the long term, however, the U.S. and Irish populations had similar behaviours. The concordance study highlighted the possibility of a measurement bias occurring for the measurement of adherence to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Chapter 3. Conclusions: This thesis has presented two reviews of international cost-sharing policies, an assessment of the generalisability of international evidence and both qualitative and quantitative examinations of cost-sharing policies for prescription medicines on the GMS scheme in Ireland. It was found that the introduction of a 50c copayment and its subsequent increase to €1.50 on the GMS scheme had a larger impact on adherence to less-essential medicines relative to essential medicines, with the exception of anti-depressant medications. This is in line with policy objectives to reduce moral hazard and is therefore demonstrative of the value of such policies. There are however some caveats. The copayment now stands at €2.50 per prescription item. The impact of this increase in copayment has yet to be assessed which is an obvious point for future research. Careful monitoring for adverse effects in socio-economically disadvantaged groups within the GMS population is also warranted. International evidence can be applied to the Irish setting to aid in future decision making in this area, but not without placing it in the local context first. Patients accepted the introduction of the 50c charge, however did voice concerns over a rising price. The challenge for policymakers is to find the ‘optimal copayment’ – whereby moral hazard is decreased, but access to essential chronic disease medicines that provide advantages at the population level is not deterred. This evidence presented in this thesis will be utilisable for future policy-making in Ireland.

Who has responsibility for access to essential medical drugs in the developing world?

L’accès aux traitements de base est un enjeu crucial pour la santé, la pauvreté et le développement. La responsabilité en matière d’accès est alors une question essentielle. Le huitième Objectif du Millénaire pour le Développement postule qu’en coopération avec les firmes pharmaceutiques, l’accès aux traitements essentiels doit être assuré. Les principales parties prenantes qui doivent engager leur responsabilité pour l’accès aux médicaments sont (1) l’industrie pharmaceutique, (2) les gouvernements, (3) la société au sens large, et (4) les individus (qu’ils soient ou non malades). Quatre approches permettent d’appréhender la responsabilité: (a) l’approche déontologique; (b) l’utilitarisme; (c) l’égalitarisme; (b) l’approche basée sur les droits de l’homme. Ces quatre arguments peuvent être utilisés pour assigner une responsabilité aux gouvernements dans l’accès aux médicaments. Le papier conclut qu’il est parfois difficile de distinguer entre ces quatre approches et qu’un « glissement-d’échelle » de la responsabilité est une voie utile pour appréhender les rôles des quatre principales parties prenantes dans l’accès aux médicaments, dépendant du pays ou de la région et de son environnement interne.

International medicines governance 1940s to 1970s : lessons for public health

Public health advocates aim to maximise affordable access to good quality essential medicines. This goal often conflicts with the profit-seeking ambitions of the pharmaceutical industry. Since the World Trade Organisation’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement, the extension and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights has become the dominant discourse in global medicines governance. Public health advocates operating within this framework face significant obstacles and challenges. This paper presents an historical perspective to the contemporary debate over medicines and patents by examining the evolution of international medicines governance between the 1940s and 1970s. This research indicates that debates around IP and medicines were more advanced in terms of equity and access in the 1960s and 1970s than they are today. While acknowledging the existence of obstacles and challenges for advocates, the paper argues that alternative frameworks can and should be reasserted in global debates about medicines governance.

Patents for humanity

This article evaluates two policy initiatives by the United States Government to address access to essential medicines -- Priority Review vouchers and “Patents for Humanity." Such proposals are aimed at speeding up the regulatory review of inventions with humanitarian uses and applications by the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It is argued that such measures fall short of international standards and norms established by the World Intellectual Property Organization Development Agenda 2007; the World Trade Organization’s Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision of August 30, 2003; and the World Health Organization’s declarations on intellectual property and public health. This article concludes that there is a need for broader patent law reform in the United States to address matters of patent law and public health. Moreover, there is a need to experiment with other, more promising alternative models of research and development -- such as medical innovation prizes, a Health Impact Fund, the Medicines Patent Pool, and Open Source Drug Discovery.

The empire of cancer: Gene patents and cancer voices

In his book, The Emperor of All Maladies, Siddhartha Mukherjee writes a history of cancer — "It is a chronicle of an ancient disease — once a clandestine, 'whispered-about' illness — that has metamorphosed into a lethal shape-shifting entity imbued with such penetrating metaphorical, medical, scientific, and political potency that cancer is often described as the defining plague of our generation." Increasingly, an important theme in the history of cancer is the role of law, particularly in the field of intellectual property law. It is striking that a number of contemporary policy debates over intellectual property and public health have concerned cancer research, diagnosis, and treatment. In the area of access to essential medicines, there has been much debate over Novartis’ patent application in respect of Glivec, a treatment for leukaemia. India’s Supreme Court held that the Swiss company’s patent application violated a safeguard provision in India’s patent law designed to stop evergreening. In the field of tobacco control, the Australian Government introduced plain packaging for tobacco products in order to address the health burdens associated with the tobacco epidemic. This regime was successfully defended in the High Court of Australia. In the area of intellectual property and biotechnology, there have been significant disputes over the Utah biotechnology company Myriad Genetics and its patents in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are related to breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision on the validity of Myriad Genetics’ patent in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1 in February 2013. The Supreme Court of the United States heard a challenge to the validity of Myriad Genetics’ patents in this area in April 2013, and handed down a judgment in July 2013. Such disputes have involved tensions between intellectual property rights, and public health. This article focuses upon one of these important test cases involving intellectual property, public health, and cancer research. In June 2010, Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy brought an action in the Federal Court of Australia against the validity of a BRCA1 patent — held by Myriad Genetics Inc, the Centre de Recherche du Chul, the Cancer Institute of Japan and Genetic Technologies Limited. Yvonne D’Arcy — a Brisbane woman who has had treatment for breast cancer — maintained: "I believe that what they are doing is morally and ethically corrupt and that big companies should not control any parts of the human body." She observed: "For my daughter, I've had her have [sic] mammograms, etc, because of me but I would still like her to be able to have the test to see if the mutation gene is in there from me." The applicants made the following arguments: "Genes and the information represented by human gene sequences are products of nature universally present in each individual, and the information content of a human gene sequence is fixed. Genetic variations or mutations are products of nature. The isolation of the BRCA1 gene mutation from the human body constitutes no more than a medical or scientific discovery of a naturally occurring phenomenon and does not give rise to a patentable invention." The applicants also argued that "the alleged invention is not a patentable invention in that, so far as claimed in claims 1–3, it is not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies". The applicants suggested that "the alleged invention is a mere discovery". Moreover, the applicants contended that "the alleged invention of each of claims 1-3 is not a patentable invention because they are claims for biological processes for the generation of human beings". The applicants, though, later dropped the argument that the patent claims related to biological processes for the generation of human beings. In February 2013, Nicholas J of the Federal Court of Australia considered the case brought by Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy against Myriad Genetics. The judge presented the issues in the case, as follows: "The issue that arises in this case is of considerable importance. It relates to the patentability of genes, or gene sequences, and the practice of 'gene patenting'. Briefly stated, the issue to be decided is whether under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) a valid patent may be granted for a claim that covers naturally occurring nucleic acid — either deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA) — that has been 'isolated'". In this context, the word "isolated" implies that naturally occurring nucleic acid found in the cells of the human body, whether it be DNA or RNA, has been removed from the cellular environment in which it naturally exists and separated from other cellular components also found there. The genes found in the human body are made of nucleic acid. The particular gene with which the patent in suit is concerned (BRCA1) is a human breast and ovarian cancer disposing gene. Various mutations that may be present in this gene have been linked to various forms of cancer including breast cancer and ovarian cancer.' The judge held in this particular case that Myriad Genetics’ patent claims were a "manner of manufacture" under s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies and s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The matter is currently under appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. This article interprets the dispute over Myriad Genetics in light of the scholarly work of Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz on inequality. Such work has significant explanatory power in the context of intellectual property and biotechnology. First, Stiglitz has contended that "societal inequality was a result not just of the laws of economics, but also of how we shape the economy — through politics, including through almost every aspect of our legal system". Stiglitz is concerned that "our intellectual property regime … contributes needlessly to the gravest form of inequality." He maintains: "The right to life should not be contingent on the ability to pay." Second, Stiglitz worries that "some of the most iniquitous aspects of inequality creation within our economic system are a result of 'rent-seeking': profits, and inequality, generated by manipulating social or political conditions to get a larger share of the economic pie, rather than increasing the size of that pie". He observes that "the most iniquitous aspect of this wealth appropriation arises when the wealth that goes to the top comes at the expense of the bottom." Third, Stiglitz comments: "When the legal regime governing intellectual property rights is designed poorly, it facilitates rent-seeking" and "the result is that there is actually less innovation and more inequality." He is concerned that intellectual property regimes "create monopoly rents that impede access to health both create inequality and hamper growth more generally." Finally, Stiglitz has recommended: "Government-financed research, foundations, and the prize system … are alternatives, with major advantages, and without the inequality-increasing disadvantages of the current intellectual property rights system.’" This article provides a critical analysis of the Australian litigation and debate surrounding Myriad Genetics’ patents in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1. First, it considers the ruling of Nicholas J in the Federal Court of Australia that Myriad Genetics’ patent was a manner of manufacture as it related to an artificially created state of affairs, and not mere products of nature. Second, it examines the policy debate over gene patents in Australia, and its relevance to the litigation involving Myriad Genetics. Third, it examines comparative law, and contrasts the ruling by Nicholas J in the Federal Court of Australia with developments in the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Fourth, this piece considers the reaction to the decision of Nicholas at first instance in Australia. Fifth, the article assesses the prospects of an appeal to the Full Federal Court of Australia over the Myriad Genetics’ patents. Finally, this article observes that, whatever happens in respect of litigation against Myriad Genetics, there remains controversy over Genetic Technologies Limited. The Melbourne firm has been aggressively licensing and enforcing its related patents on non-coding DNA and genomic mapping.