Inventing life: Intellectual property and the new biology

In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected: 'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.' The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreover, it was hoped that the New Biology could lead to a better understanding of individual health: ‘The New Biology can accelerate fundamental understanding of the systems that underlie health and the development of the tools and technologies that will in turn lead to more efficient approaches to developing therapeutics and enabling individualized, predictive medicine.’ Biological research has certainly been changing direction in response to changing societal problems. Over the last decade, increasing awareness of the impacts of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels can be seen to have generated investment in fields such as biofuels, climate-ready crops and storage of agricultural genetic resources. In considering biotechnology’s role in the twenty-first century, biological future-predictor Carlson’s firm Biodesic states: ‘The problems the world faces today – ecosystem responses to global warming, geriatric care in the developed world or infectious diseases in the developing world, the efficient production of more goods using less energy and fewer raw materials – all depend on understanding and then applying biology as a technology.’ This collection considers the roles of intellectual property law in regulating emerging technologies in the biological sciences. Stephen Hilgartner comments that patent law plays a significant part in social negotiations about the shape of emerging technological systems or artefacts: 'Emerging technology – especially in such hotbeds of change as the life sciences, information technology, biomedicine, and nanotechnology – became a site of contention where competing groups pursued incompatible normative visions. Indeed, as people recognized that questions about the shape of technological systems were nothing less than questions about the future shape of societies, science and technology achieved central significance in contemporary democracies. In this context, states face ongoing difficulties trying to mediate these tensions and establish mechanisms for addressing problems of representation and participation in the sociopolitical process that shapes emerging technology.' The introduction to the collection will provide a thumbnail, comparative overview of recent developments in intellectual property and biotechnology – as a foundation to the collection. Section I of this introduction considers recent developments in United States patent law, policy and practice with respect to biotechnology – in particular, highlighting the Myriad Genetics dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos. Section II considers the cross-currents in Canadian jurisprudence in intellectual property and biotechnology. Section III surveys developments in the European Union – and the interpretation of the European Biotechnology Directive. Section IV focuses upon Australia and New Zealand, and considers the policy responses to the controversy of Genetic Technologies Limited’s patents in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. Section V outlines the parts of the collection and the contents of the chapters.

Climate-ready crops: Intellectual property, agriculture, and climate change

In The Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut emphasised that ‘Climate change and climate change mitigation will bring about major structural change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors’. He provides this overview of the effects of climate change on food demand and supply: ‘Domestic food production in many developing countries will be at immediate risk of reductions in agricultural productivity due to crop failure, livestock loss, severe weather events and new patterns of pests and diseases.’ He observes that ‘Changes to local climate and water availability will be key determinants of where agricultural production occurs and what is produced.’ Gert Würtenberger has commented that modern plant breeding is particularly concerned with addressing larger issues about nutrition, food security and climate change: ‘Modern plant breeding has an increasing importance with regard to the continuously growing demand for plants for nutritional and feeding purposes as well as with regard to renewal energy sources and the challenges caused by climate changes.’ Moreover, he notes that there is a wide array of scientific and technological means of breeding new plant varieties: ‘Apart from classical breeding, technologies have an important role in the development of plants that satisfy the various requirements that industrial and agricultural challenges expect to be fulfilled.’ He comments: ‘Plant variety rights, as well as patents which protect such results, are of increasingly high importance to the breeders and enterprises involved in plant development programmes.’ There has been larger interest in the intersections between sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and food security. The debate over agricultural intellectual property is a polarised one, particularly between plant breeders, agricultural biotechnology companies and a range of environmentalist groups. Susan Sell comments that there are complex intellectual property battles surrounding agriculture: 'Seeds are at the centre of a complex political dynamic between stakeholders. Access to seeds concerns the balance between private rights and public obligations, private ownership and the public domain, and commercial versus humanitarian objectives.' Part I of this chapter considers debates in respect of plant breeders’ rights, food security and climate change in relation to the UPOV Convention 1991. Part II explores efforts by agricultural biotechnology companies to patent climate-ready crops. Part III considers the report of the Special Rapporteur for Food, Olivier De Schutter. It looks at a variety of options to encourage access to plant varieties with climate adaptive or mitigating properties.

Intellectual property and global warming: Climate justice

Engaging in a close analysis of legal and political discourse, this chapter considers conflicts over intellectual property and climate change in three key arenas: climate law; trade law; and intellectual property law. In this chapter, it is argued that there is a need to overcome the political stalemates and deadlocks over intellectual property and climate change. It is essential that intellectual property law engage in a substantive fashion with the matrix of issues surrounding fossil fuels, clean technologies, and climate change at an international level. First, this chapter examines the debate over intellectual property and climate change under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, and the establishment of the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and Network. It recommends that the technology mechanism should address and deal with matters of intellectual property management and policy. Second, the piece examines the discussion of global issues in the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO GREEN. It supports the proposal for a Global Green Patent Highway to allow for the fast-tracking of intellectual property applications in respect of green technologies. Third, the chapter investigates the dispute in the TRIPS Council at the World Trade Organization over intellectual property, climate change, and development. This section focuses upon the TRIPS Agreement 1994. This chapter calls for a Joint Declaration on Intellectual Property and Climate Change from the UNFCCC, WIPO, and the WTO. The paper concludes that intellectual property should be reformed as part of a larger effort to promote climate justice. Rather than adopt a fragmented, piecemeal approach in various international institutions, there is a need for a co-ordinated and cohesive response to intellectual property in an age of runaway, global climate change. Patent law should be fossil fuel free. Intellectual property should encourage research, development, and diffusion of renewable energy and clean technologies. It is submitted that intellectual property law reform should promote climate justice in line with Mary Robinson’s Declaration on Climate Justice 2013.

The legacy of David Unaipon

The historical case of David Unaipon is a good starting point for a wider discussion of Indigenous intellectual property law, practice and reform. His story is a microcosm of larger battles over the cultural appropriation of Indigenous culture, iconography and science. David Unaipon could be seen as a beneficiary of intellectual property law. He is a creator of copyright works; an inventor of patented inventions; and an iconic figure, worthy of personality rights. His creative and scientific work has been an inspiration for others. David Unaipon could also be seen as being disenfranchised by intellectual property law. He lost ownership of his economic rights in respect of literary works; and his moral rights have not been respected under copyright law. His case also highlights the deficiencies of copyright law in respect of its failure to provide comprehensive recognition of communal authorship and ownership of copyright works. While he was a patent applicant, David Unaipon never seemed to have benefitted from the patent system. His experience raises questions about access to justice. The government and commercial use of the persona of David Unaipon raises complex questions about trade mark law, passing off and personality rights. The story of David Unaipon highlights the need for the systematic and holistic reformation of intellectual property law, so that it better serves Indigenous communities and peoples.

Michael Kirby's challenge: Intellectual property, HIV/AIDS, and human rights

In July 2014, Melbourne hosted the 20th International AIDS Conference. The event opened, paying tribute to the late Dutch HIV/AIDS researcher Professor Joep Lange, with his image projected onto a screen, with the accompanying quotation: ‘If we can bring a bottle of Coke to every corner of Africa, we should be able to also deliver antiretroviral drugs.’

Intellectual property, innovation, and the environment (2014) edited by Peter Menell and Sarah Tran: A review

Peter S. Menell and Sarah M. Tran (ed.), Intellectual Property, Innovation and the Environment, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar, 2014, 756 pp Hardback 978 1 78195 160 6, http://www.e-elgar.com/bookentry_main.lasso?id=15063 There has been a longstanding deadlock over intellectual property and clean technologies in international climate talks. The United States — and other developed countries such as Japan, Denmark Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand — have pushed for stronger and longer protection of intellectual property rights related to clean technologies. BASIC countries — such as Brazil, South Africa, India, and China — have pushed for greater flexibilities in respect of intellectual property for the purpose of addressing climate change and global warming. Small island states, least developed countries, and nations vulnerable to climate change have called for climate-adaptation and climate-mitigation technologies to be available in the public domain. In the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Summit in New York on the 23rd September 2014, it is timely to consider the debate over intellectual property, innovation, the environment, and climate change.

Environmental technologies, intellectual property and climate change (2013) edited by Abbe Brown

Abbe Brown from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, is one of the leading international researchers on intellectual property and climate change. She is an intellectual dynamo. Her work brings together a mastery of intellectual property, with a strong interest in innovation theory and practice, and an engagement with public policy issues surrounding human rights, competition policy, and access to knowledge. Abbe Brown has shown a particular aptitude for tackling big ideas and wicked global problems, with intelligence, gusto, insight, and formidable wisdom.

Tesla motors’ open source revolution: Intellectual property and the carbon crisis

On the 12th June 2014, Elon Musk, the chief executive officer of the electric car manufacturer, Tesla Motors, announced in a blog that ‘all our patents belong to you.’ He explained that the company would adopt an open source philosophy in respect of its intellectual property in order to encourage the development of the industry of electric cars, and address the carbon crisis. Elon Musk made the dramatic, landmark announcement: Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

The solar capital: Canberra, clean tech, and climate change

There has been an increasing focus upon the role of cities and local government in respect of action upon climate change...

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.