Ipr In Wipo-Administered Biotech Treaties.
Key WIPO Administered Treaties in Biotech
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT):
The PCT system facilitates the filing of patents internationally. It allows a single patent application to be filed with WIPO, which then designates the countries where the applicant seeks protection. This simplifies the process for biotech companies wishing to protect their inventions in multiple jurisdictions.
The Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure:
This treaty standardizes the process of depositing biological material (such as microorganisms) that is required to be available to the public under patent law. It ensures that patent applicants can deposit biological material with an authorized institution to fulfill the requirements for patentability.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD):
Although not directly administered by WIPO, the CBD is an international agreement that intersects with patent law, especially with respect to the use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Under the Nagoya Protocol, countries regulate access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their use.
Case Laws Involving IPR in Biotech Treaties
1. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980):
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether a genetically modified organism (GMO) could be patented under U.S. patent law.
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of patentability for genetically modified organisms. Chakrabarty had created a bacterium capable of breaking down oil, and the Court determined that it was eligible for patent protection under the Patent Act. The case established that genetically modified organisms could be patented as “manufactures” or “compositions of matter.”
Significance: This case is foundational in understanding the patentability of biotechnological inventions. It marked a shift in biotechnology innovation, opening doors for patents on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which directly influenced patent law under the PCT system and its international harmonization through WIPO.
2. Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1997):
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Issue: Whether the use of the genetic sequence of insulin for commercialization infringed on the University of California’s patent rights.
Ruling: The court ruled that Eli Lilly & Co. had infringed the patent rights of the University of California in relation to the genetically engineered insulin. The court affirmed the University's rights to the genetic material and the biotech invention involving insulin synthesis.
Significance: This case emphasized the importance of patenting biotechnological inventions, especially in the context of recombinant DNA and other genetic technologies. It also brought attention to the necessity of securing patent rights in biotechnology for commercial products like insulin, a drug that was later widely used globally.
3. Australian Biotechnology Patent Case (2002):
Court: High Court of Australia
Issue: The patentability of isolated genetic material (particularly, genes and DNA sequences) and whether they could be considered inventions under Australian patent law.
Ruling: The High Court ruled that isolated genetic material, such as the BRCA1 gene related to breast cancer susceptibility, could be patented, so long as it met the criteria for patentability — novelty, inventive step, and utility.
Significance: This ruling reinforced the global trend of permitting patent protection for isolated genetic material. It also raised questions about the ethical considerations surrounding gene patents, especially in areas related to public health and access to genetic knowledge.
4. Myriad Genetics, Inc. v. Association for Molecular Pathology (2013):
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether human genes isolated from the body could be patented, specifically in the case of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes associated with breast cancer susceptibility.
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring human genes could not be patented. However, synthetic or modified versions of the genes could be patentable. This ruling invalidated several patents held by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA genes.
Significance: This case was landmark in terms of the ethics and legality surrounding gene patenting. It directly challenged practices in biotechnology patenting, especially those related to isolated genes, and reinforced the growing trend to distinguish between naturally occurring biological substances and those modified by human intervention. It also prompted the biotech industry to rethink how they protect genetic inventions under international patent systems like the PCT.
5. European Patent Office: T 1063/18 (2020):
Court: European Patent Office (EPO)
Issue: Whether a patent application related to CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, specifically in relation to human embryos, should be granted.
Ruling: The EPO ruled that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing invention could not be patented due to ethical concerns surrounding human embryo editing. The court held that such a process violated moral provisions under European patent law.
Significance: The decision reflects the intersection of biotechnology and ethics in patent law. While CRISPR technology is revolutionary in genetic engineering, the case illustrates the importance of ensuring that patenting does not conflict with moral and ethical standards, a critical consideration in biotech treaties administered by WIPO.
Key Takeaways and Reflections
Global Patentability of Biotechnological Inventions: The cases above demonstrate the evolution of the patentability of biotechnological inventions, such as genetically modified organisms, genes, and gene-editing technologies. WIPO’s international treaties, like the PCT and Budapest Treaty, help harmonize these rules across different jurisdictions, ensuring global consistency.
Ethics in Biotechnology: The debate over the ethical implications of gene patents, particularly regarding human genetic material, continues to be a significant challenge in the biotechnology sector. WIPO and its member states are tasked with balancing innovation with ethical considerations, as highlighted by cases like Myriad Genetics and CRISPR-Cas9.
Access to Genetic Resources: Treaties like the Nagoya Protocol address the rights of indigenous communities and countries regarding the use of their genetic resources. Patent cases often intersect with these legal frameworks, as seen in issues related to benefit-sharing and access to biological materials.
In conclusion, the evolution of IPR in biotech is intricately connected to global treaties like those administered by WIPO. These cases reflect the challenges of aligning innovation with international law and ethics, and how patent systems must adapt to the rapid advancements in biotechnology.
RELATED Blog
comments