The doomsday vault: Seed banks, food security, and climate change

"It could easily provide the back-drop for a James Bond movie. Deep inside a mountain near the North Pole, down a fortified tunnel, and behind airlocked doors in a vault frozen to -18 degrees Celsius, scientists are squirreling away millions of seed samples. The samples constitute the very foundation of agriculture, the biological diversity needed so the world's major food crops can adapt to the next pest or disease, or to climate change. It's little wonder that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault has captured the public's imagination more than almost any agricultural topic in recent years. Popular press reports about the ‘Doomsday Vault,’ however, typically mask the complexity of the endeavor and, if anything, underestimate its practical utility." Cary Fowler This chapter considers the use of seed banks to address concerns about intellectual property, climate change and food security. It has a number of themes. First of all, it is interested in the use of ‘Big Science’ projects to address pressing global scientific concerns and Millennium Development Goals. Second, it highlights the increasing use of banks as a means of managing both property and intellectual property across a wide range of fields of agriculture and biotechnology. Third, it considers the linkage of intellectual property, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. There are a variety of positions in this debate. Some see requirements in respect of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as an inconvenient burden for science and commerce. Others defend access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as meaningful and productive. Those inclined to somewhat more conspiratorial views suggest that access to genetic resources and benefit sharing are a ruse to facilitate biopiracy. This chapter has a number of components. Section I focuses upon the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network – often raised as a model for Climate Innovation Centres. Section II considers the Svalbard Global Seed Vault – the so-called Doomsday Vault. After a consideration of the World Summit on Food Security in 2009, it is concluded in this chapter that any future international agreement on climate change needs to address intellectual property, plant genetic resources and food security.

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.

Does Australia need laws for 'Biotrespass' to protect organic farmers?

The supreme court of Western Australia handed down a landmark decision yesterday, on genetically modified crop liability. The ruling in Marsh v Baxter is an enormous win for the agricultural biotechnology industry, and has disappointed organic farmers and their advocates.

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.

Who owns your body? Patricia Piccinini and the future of bioethics

This article analyses some popular cultural representations of biotechnology, especially the artistic work of the Australian artist Patricia Piccinini to reflect on the role of law, technology and ethics in relation to bodily material. Her view that "with creation...comes an obligation to care for the result", so evident in her poignant pictures, is a sober reminder to us of our responsibilities in regulating new technologies.

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.

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.

Beyond blue gene: Intellectual property and bioinformatics

This article considers the challenges posed to intellectual property law by the emerging field of bioinformatics. It examines the intellectual property strategies of established biotechnology companies, such as Celera Genomics, and information technology firms entering into the marketplace, such as IBM. First this paper argues that copyright law is not irrelevant to biotechnology, as some commentators would suggest. It claims that the use of copyright law and contract law is fundamental to the protection of biomedical and genomic databases. Second this article questions whether biotechnology companies are exclusively interested in patenting genes and genetics sequences. Recent evidence suggests that biotechnology companies and IT firms are patenting bioinformatics software and Internet business methods, as well as underlying instrumentation such as microarrays and genechips. Finally, this paper evaluates what impact the privatisation of bioinformatics will have on public research and scientific communication. It raises important questions about integration, interoperability, and the risks of monopoly. It finally considers whether open source software such as the Ensembl Project and peer to peer technology like DSAS will be able to counter this trend of privatisation.

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.

Japonica rice: Intellectual property, scientific publishing and data-sharing

This article examines a series of controversies within the life sciences over data sharing. Part 1 focuses upon the agricultural biotechnology firm Syngenta publishing data on the rice genome in the journal Science, and considers proposals to reform scientific publishing and funding to encourage data sharing. Part 2 examines the relationship between intellectual property rights and scientific publishing, in particular copyright protection of databases, and evaluates the declaration of the Human Genome Organisation that genomic databases should be global public goods. Part 3 looks at varying opinions on the information function of patent law, and then considers the proposals of Patrinos and Drell to provide incentives for private corporations to release data into the public domain.

Just label it: Consumer rights, GM food labelling, and international trade

In the United States, there has been fierce debate over state, federal and international efforts to engage in genetically modified food labelling (GM food labelling). A grassroots coalition of consumers, environmentalists, organic farmers, and the food movement has pushed for law reform in respect of GM food labelling. The Just Label It campaign has encouraged United States consumers to send comments to the United States Food and Drug Administration to label genetically modified foods. This Chapter explores the various justifications made in respect of genetically modified food labelling. There has been a considerable effort to portray the issue of GM food labelling as one of consumer rights as part of ‘the right to know’. There has been a significant battle amongst farmers over GM food labelling – with organic farmers and biotechnology companies, fighting for precedence. There has also been a significant discussion about the use of GM food labelling as a form of environmental legislation. The prescriptions in GM food labelling regulations may serve to promote eco-labelling, and deter greenwashing. There has been a significant debate over whether GM food labelling may serve to regulate corporations – particularly from the food, agriculture, and biotechnology industries. There are significant issues about the interaction between intellectual property laws – particularly in respect of trade mark law and consumer protection – and regulatory proposals focused upon biotechnology. There has been a lack of international harmonization in respect of GM food labelling. As such, there has been a major use of comparative arguments about regulator models in respect of food labelling. There has also been a discussion about international law, particularly with the emergence of sweeping regional trade proposals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This Chapter considers the United States debates over genetically modified food labelling – at state, federal, and international levels. The battles often involved the use of citizen-initiated referenda. The policy conflicts have been policy-centric disputes – pitting organic farmers, consumers, and environmentalists against the food industry and biotechnology industry. Such battles have raised questions about consumer rights, public health, freedom of speech, and corporate rights. The disputes highlighted larger issues about lobbying, fund-raising, and political influence. The role of money in United States has been a prominent concern of Lawrence Lessig in his recent academic and policy work with the group, Rootstrikers. Part 1 considers the debate in California over Proposition 37. Part 2 explores other key state initiatives in respect of GM food labelling. Part 3 examines the Federal debate in the United States over GM food labelling. Part 4 explores whether regional trade agreements – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – will impact upon

The attack of the clones: Patent law and stem cell research

This article considers the integral role played by patent law in respect of stem cell research. It highlights concerns about commercialization, access to essential medicines and bioethics. The article maintains that there is a fundamental ambiguity in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) as to whether stem cell research is patentable subject matter. There is a need to revise the legislation in light of the establishment of the National Stem Cell Centre and the passing of the Research Involving Embryos Act 2002 (Cth). The article raises concerns about the strong patent protection secured by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and Geron Corporation in respect of stem cell research in the United States. It contends that a number of legal reforms could safeguard access to stem cell lines, and resulting drugs and therapies. Finally, this article explores how ethical concerns are addressed within the framework of the European Biotechnology Directive. It examines the decision of the European Patent Office in relation to the so-called Edinburgh patent, and the inquiry of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies into The Ethical Aspects of Patenting Involving Human Stem Cells.

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.