Patent-busting: The public patent foundation, gene patents and the Seed Wars

This chapter considers the Public Patent Foundation as a novel institution in the patent framework. It contends that such a model can play a productive role in challenging the validity of high-profile patents; working as an amicus curiae in significant court cases; and also promoting patent law reform. However, there are limits to the ‘patent-busting’ of the Foundation. The not-for-profit legal services organization has only had the time and resources to challenge a number of noteworthy patents. Other jurisdictions – such as Australia – lack such public-spirited "patent-busting" entities. This chapter considers a number of key disputes involving the Public Patent Foundation. Part I examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in the landmark dispute over Myriad Genetics’ patents in respect of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Part II considers the role of the Public Patent Foundation in litigation between organic farmers and Monsanto. Part III examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in larger debates about patent law reform in the United States – particularly looking at the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 2011 (US). The conclusion contends that the patent-busting model of the Public Patent Foundation should be emulated in respect of other technological fields, and other jurisdictions – such as Australia. The initiative could also be productively applied to other forms of intellectual property – such as trade mark law, designs law, plant breeders’ rights, plant breeders’ rights, and access to genetic resources.

A crowning glory: Patent law and public health

Australian patent law reforms are critical to ensuring Australians have access to vital health-care services and technologies and that people in developing countries have access to affordable, life-saving medicines...

The high price of drug patents: Australia, patent law, pharmaceutical drugs and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

This week, the secrecy surrounding an independent Australian report on patent law and pharmaceutical drugs has been lifted, and the work has been published to great acclaim...

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.

Geopiracy: Patent law, climate change, and geoengineering

Patent law is a regime of intellectual property, which provides exclusive rights regarding scientific inventions, which are novel, inventive, and useful. There has been much debate over the limits of patentable subject matter relating to emerging technologies. The Supreme Court of the US has sought to rein in the expansive interpretation of patentability by lower courts in a series of cases dealing with medical information (Prometheus), finance (Bilski), and gene patents (Myriad). This has led to a reinvigoration of the debate over the boundaries of patentable subject matter. There has been controversy about the rise in patenting of geoengineering - particularly by firms such as Intellectual Ventures.

23andMe Inc.: Patent law and lifestyle genetics

The venture, 23andMe Inc., raises a host of issues in respect of patent law, policy, and practice in respect of lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine. The company observes: ‘We recognize that the availability of personal genetic information raises important issues at the nexus of ethics, law, and public policy’. 23andMe Inc. has tested the boundaries of patent law, with its patent applications, which cut across information technology, medicine, and biotechnology. The company’s research raises fundamental issues about patentability, especially in light of the litigation in Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. and Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc. There has been much debate and controversy over 23andMe Inc. filing patent applications – particularly in respect of its granted patent on ‘Polymorphisms associated with Parkinson’s Disease’. The direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing by 23andMe Inc. has also raised important questions of bioethics and human rights. It is queried whether the terms of service for 23andMe Inc. provide adequate recognition of the concepts of informed consent and benefit-sharing, especially in light of litigation in this area in the United States. Given the patent thickets surrounding genetic testing, the case study of 23andMe Inc. also highlights questions about patent infringement and patent exceptions. The future reform of patent law, policy, and practice needs to take into account new developments in lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine – as exemplified by 23andMe Inc.

A proposal for a clean technology directive: European patent law and climate change

This article charts the conflicted, dissonant policies of the European Union towards intellectual property and climate change. It contends that there is a mismatch between the empirical work of the European Patent Office and the quietist policy options contemplated by the European Union. This article contends that the European Union needs to develop a Clean Technology Directive to allow for a differentiated approach to patent law and clean technologies - especially given the past complicity of the European Union in global warming and climate change. It highlights essential elements in a comprehensive policy package for the reform of patent law - considering patentable subject matter; patent incentives; and patent exceptions.

Franklin Barley: Patent law and plant breeders’ rights

This paper considers the relationship between patent law and plant breeders' rights in light of modern developments in biotechnology. It examines how a number of superior courts have sought to manage the tensions and conflicts between these competing schemes of intellectual property protection. Part 1 considers the High Court of Australia case of Grain Pool of Western Australia v the Commonwealth dealing with Franklin barley. Part 2 examines the significance of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc with respect to utility patents and hybrid seed. Part 3 considers the Supreme Court of Canada case of Harvard College v the Commissioner of Patents dealing with the transgenic animal, oncomouse, and discusses its implications for the forthcoming appeal from the Federal Court case of Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto.

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 biofuels: The energy crisis, food security, and climate change

In light of larger public policy debates over intellectual property and climate change, this article considers patent practice, law, and policy in respect of biofuels. This debate has significant implications for public policy discussions in respect of energy independence, food security, and climate change. The first section of the paper provides a network analysis of patents in respect of biofuels across the three generations. It provides empirical research in respect of patent subject matter, ownership, and strategy in respect of biofuels. The second section provides a case study of significant patent litigation over biofuels. There is an examination of the biofuels patent litigation between the Danish company Novozymes, and Danisco and DuPont. The third section examines flexibilities in respect of patent law and clean technologies in the context of the case study of biofuels. In particular, it explores the debate over substantive doctrinal matters in respect of biofuels – such as patentable subject matter, technology transfer, patent pools, compulsory licensing, and disclosure requirements. The conclusion explores the relevance of the debate over patent law and biofuels to the larger public policy discussions over energy independence, food security, and climate change.

The freedom to tinker: Patent law and experimental use

This article considers the origins and the development of the defence of experimental use in patent law - the ’freedom to tinker'. It explores the impact of such an exemption upon a number of important industries - such as agriculture, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical drugs. This article takes a comparative approach in its analysis of patent law and experimental use. It highlights the competing norms, and lack of harmonization between a number of jurisdictions - including the United States, the European Union, and Australia. Section 2 provides a critique of the development of the common law defence of experimental use in the United States. It considers a series of precedents - including Roche Products Inc v Bolar Pharmaceuticals, Madey v Duke University, Integra Lifesciences I Ltd v Merck KgaA, and Applera v MJ Research. Section 3 explores the operation of patent law and experimental use in European jurisdictions. It looks at a number of significant precedents in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Italy, and Germany. Section 4 considers the policy debate in a number of forums over the defence of experimental use in Australia. It examines the controversy over Genetic Technologies Limited asking research organisations to obtain a licence in respect of its patents associated with non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. It also considers the inquiries of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, as well as the impact of the TRIPS Agreement and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The conclusion contends that there is a need for a broad-based defence of experimental use for all the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The last taboo: Patenting human beings

This article considers the efforts of the Australian Law Reform Commission to clarify the meaning of section 18(2) of the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Cth): ’Human beings and the biological processes for their generation are not patentable inventions.' It provides a critique of the proposals of the Commission with respect to patent law and stem cell research. The Commission has recommended that IP Australia should develop examination guidelines to explain how the criteria for patentability apply to inventions involving stem cell technologies. It has advised the Australian Government that the practice code of the United Kingdom Patent Office (UKPO) would be a good model for such guidelines, with its distinction between totipotent and pluripotent stem cells. Arguably, though, there is a need to codify this proposal in a legislative directive, and not merely in examination guidelines. The Commission has been reluctant to take account of the ethical considerations with respect to patent law and stem cell research. There could be greater scope for such considerations, by the use of expert advisory boards, opposition proceedings and the requirement of informed consent. The Commission has put forward a number of general and specific recommendations to enhance access to patented stem cell technologies. It recommends the development of a research exemption, and the modernisation of compulsory licensing and crown use provisions. It also explores the establishment of a stem cell bank and the promulgation of guidelines by funding agencies. Such proposals to promote greater public access to stem cell research are to be welcomed.

The paradox of creative uncertainty in learning and teaching

In an ever-changing and globalised world there is a need for higher education to adapt and evolve its models of learning and teaching. The old industrial model has lost traction, and new patterns of creative engagement are required. These new models potentially increase relevancy and better equip students for the future. Although creativity is recognised as an attribute that can contribute much to the development of these pedagogies, and creativity is valued by universities as a graduate capability, some educators understandably struggle to translate this vision into practice. This paper reports on selected survey findings from a mixed methods research project which aimed to shed light on how creativity can be designed for in higher education learning and teaching settings. A social constructivist epistemology underpinned the research and data was gathered using survey and case study methods. Descriptive statistical methods and informed grounded theory were employed for the analysis reported here. The findings confirm that creativity is valued for its contribution to the development of students’ academic work, employment opportunities and life in general; however, tensions arise between individual educator’s creative pedagogical goals and the provision of institutional support for implementation of those objectives. Designing for creativity becomes, paradoxically, a matter of navigating and limiting complexity and uncertainty, while simultaneously designing for those same states or qualities.

Intellectual property and climate change: Inventing clean technologies

In the wake of the international summits in Copenhagen and Cancún, there is an urgent need to consider the role of intellectual property law in encouraging research, development, and diffusion of clean technologies to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. This book charts the patent landscapes and legal conflicts emerging in a range of fields of innovation – including renewable forms of energy, such as solar power, wind power, and geothermal energy; as well as biofuels, green chemistry, green vehicles, energy efficiency, and smart grids. As well as reviewing key international treaties, this book provides a detailed analysis of current trends in patent policy and administration in key nation states, and offers clear recommendations for law reform. It considers such options as technology transfer, compulsory licensing, public sector licensing, and patent pools; and analyses the development of Climate Innovation Centres, the Eco-Patent Commons, and environmental prizes, such as the L-Prize, the H-Prize, and the X-Prizes. This book will have particular appeal to policy-makers given its focus upon recent legislative developments and reform proposals, as well as legal practitioners by developing a better understanding of recent legal, scientific, and business developments, and how they affect their practice. Innovators, scientists and researchers will also benefit from reading this book.

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'.