This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

The community concerns underpinning this controversy are essentially that:

• Patents risk public health, drive up health costs and stifle research

• Genes are a discovery and not an invention; and

• Patenting biological materials is tantamount to patenting the human body.

Community concerns should always be

addressed. However, this Bill is a blunt instrument that does not provide a sensible solution. It proposes to simply exclude from patentability all biological materials resembling those that exist in nature. Since this proposed ban encompasses an enormous range of molecules and extends to all organisms, it would have a significant impact on the functioning of not only healthcare, but also sectors as diverse as agriculture, the livestock industry and food technology.

Ironically, however, what would

nevertheless remain patentable is the technology that ignited this issue—diagnostic methods. Still further, healthcare delivery necessitates access to a much broader range of technologies than just biological materials, yet the Bill does nothing to safeguard access to these other technologies.

Of most concern, however, is that in addition to doing little to alleviate community concerns, the Bill may also create a range of new problems. Specifically:

• The Bill would introduce uncertainty as its language would require interpretation to clarify its actual scope. Te issue of interpretation can only be settled by the courts and a significant risk is that judicial interpretation may result in the inadvertent exclusion of molecules that were never intended to be excluded.

• Any suggestion that the Bill would only exclude isolated biological materials but not corresponding medicinal forms is misplaced. Where medicines

essentially comprise the

biological material itself, they would also be arguably excluded.

• All other developed countries would continue to grant patents to biological materials and Australia therefore runs the risk of an adverse impact on accessing new patented medicines. Ultimately, the decision by patentees to pursue regulatory approval in Australia and to release a product in competition with other companies will be made case by case. However, Australia is a small market when considered globally and enacting legislation that would effectively make it less desirable as a potential market would seem unwise.

• Australia would likely be placed in breach of its international obligations under TRIPS and its

US Free Trade Agreement. Tese treaties require Australia to make patents available in all fields of technology. In particular, Europe has expressly legislated in favour of the patentability of biological materials and enacting this Bill would immediately place Australia at odds with Europe.

In terms of the question of discovery versus invention, the fact is that across the developed world isolated biologicals are regarded as patentable subject matter on the basis that they represent an artificially created state of affairs. However, what is generally not appreciated by the public is the fact that this does not mean that they can be patented. In order to be patented, they must also be new, not obvious and useful. Tis is the reason why human gene patents are now, in fact, rarely granted.

Accordingly, on any logical risk/benefit analysis, enacting this Bill exposes Australia to significant adverse risks for the sake of very little apparent actual benefit. Te community’s concerns would be better addressed by providing technology neutral solutions to regulate the exercise of patent rights, rather than the existence of the right itself. To this end, the Patents Act already provides compulsory licence and Crown use provisions, and a legislated research use exemption will be imminently enacted. It would be better to focus on the smooth operation of these safeguards in respect of all technologies, including future technologies, rather than banning patents for certain technologies.

In terms of the ethical issues, these represent difficult considerations since they reflect personal views that generally change over time. For example, would the community as a whole hold the same ethical objection to the patenting of a cone toxin protein, which can provide pain relief to morphine-resistant patients, as it may hold to the patenting of human genetic material?

A better way forward would be to consider the recommendations made

by the Australian

Government’s Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) in its recent 2010 report. Te ACIP proposes a general patentability exclusion for an invention “the commercial exploitation of which would be wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the Australian public”. Tis recommendation is clearly an attempt to provide a mechanism for dealing with ethical issues in a manner that provides the flexibility to consider inventions on a case-by-case basis and to accommodate changing

community values. For example,

would the reasonable and fully informed person object to the granting of a patent to a biological material that is being developed as a cancer drug if patent grant would make the difference between the availability or not of that drug in Australia. Is it

Dr Tania Obranovich practises as both a patent attorney and solicitor, specialising in biotechnology. To this practice, she brings the experience obtained in pursuing molecular and cellular immunological research to the post- doctoral level. As a patent attorney, Obranovich is involved in a range of intellectual property matters including the draſting and prosecution of biotechnology patent applications, the provision of patentability and infringement opinions and the provision of advice relating

to the development

strategic and

maintenance of biotechnology IP portfolios. As a solicitor, Obranovich has been involved in both biotechnology related litigation and intellectual property commercialisation matters.

more ethically abhorrent to risk denying access in Australia than enabling patent grant in the context of a patent system that has been designed with robust safeguards regulating the exercise of such patent rights? Although this particular recommendation may not represent the best answer to the complex issue of ethical patenting it should, at least, form part of the current discussion in relation to the merits of the Bill.

Tere have been five Australian enquiries held in the last seven years in relation to the issue of patentable subject matter. All of these enquiries have consistently recommended that amending the patentable subject matter provisions of the Patents Act to exclude specific subject matter is not the correct way forward and that we should instead focus on ensuring both the existence of effective safeguards and that patentability thresholds are appropriately set and properly implemented. Consideration of this Bill should be discontinued in favour of discussing these recommendations. Ultimately, this approach would be of significantly more benefit in terms of achieving the outcomes that are actually sought by the wider community, while avoiding the raſt of unintentional but nevertheless detrimental consequences that would inevitably flow from the current Bill.

Dr Tania Obranovich is a partner at Davies Collison Cave. She can be contacted at:

Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review 2011


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84