Implications of U.S. gene patent invalidation on Australia

Last updated

On 29 March 2010, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found several of the patent claims on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes held by Myriad Genetics to be invalid. The patents were initially issued on the basis that the genes were isolated and purified to a non-naturally occurring state, however the court found, amongst other things, that the purification was not markedly different from a product of nature and thus was not patentable. The ruling may have implications for holders of other gene patents and the patentability of other naturally occurring substances. It has the potential to directly affect the operation of the healthcare and medical research industries, particularly with regards to cancer treatment and prevention, and may alter the accessibility of such therapies to patients.

Contents

Myriad Genetics' patents for the testing of the breast cancer genes are currently licensed for use in Australia to Genetic Technologies Limited. [1] Genetic Technologies attempted to enforce its rights and stop other laboratories from performing the tests as recently as 2008, but was forced to back down following public protest. [2] The US court decision has prompted further debate about the legitimacy of gene patents in Australia. A Federal Government inquiry into the issue [3] is currently underway and is expected to report in September 2013[ when? ].

Operation of gene patents prior to invalidation

Awarding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents in US

Patentable subject matter

There are no special proscriptions for specific subject matter in US patent law, and Congress and the courts have consistently declined to enact limitations on patentable subject matter for specific industries. [4] Accordingly, a DNA sequence, like other molecules, is eligible to be considered for patenting by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, provided that the patentee alters its environment or structure. [5] Myriad Genetics' patent applications were eligible as the BRCA genes were isolated from their natural environment.

Tests

Under international standards, patentable matter must satisfy tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial application, to protect subject matter in the public domain. [6] The industrial application step is the most difficult to meet under US patent law. A DNA sequence is only able to meet this criterion if a direct industrial use for the sequence can be identified. [6] This would not have been difficult for Myriad Genetics to demonstrate in its BRCA patent applications, as its inventions were designed for the purposes of testing subjects for their susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers.

International trade law dictates that a country can apply no additional tests in evaluating patentability, and must apply these tests without discriminating against biological inventions. [6] Therefore, ethics-based criteria would not have factored into the USPTO's decision to allow Myriad Genetics to patent the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Scope of awarded patents

Myriad Genetics' BRCA patents have broad scope in the US. The company's claims consist of harmful mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, the use of the mutations to diagnose and screen for breast and ovarian cancers, and the development of treatments for these cancers. [7] : 132 

Application of BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents in US market

Monopolistic behaviour

Although Myriad Genetics is one of few gene patent holders to seek infringement litigation against its patents and has only done so twice, [8] the existing threat of litigation, according to anecdotal evidence from some laboratories, has been sufficient to keep competitors in the US from challenging Myriad Genetics' monopoly on BRCA gene testing. [9] As a result, the company's monopoly may inhibit research and prevent the development of improvements in breast cancer testing technology. [7] : 139  A counter-argument is that gene patents encourage innovation because patents can provide financial rewards. [10]

Accessibility of BRCA testing

Myriad Genetics has used sequencing of the BRCA genes to develop a test for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, which it markets to laboratories as BRACAnalysis. [7] : 130  As at 2010, the test costs US$3,400, [11] which is three times the cost of pre-patented testing. [12] The company currently has agreements with major health organisations in the US and international licensing agreements for exclusive provisions. [7] : 136  Consequently, individuals wishing to be tested for breast or ovarian cancer predisposition would be unable to circumnavigate Myriad Genetics' prices either within the US or by seeking testing abroad. Accessibility therefore remains an issue, despite the widespread availability of testing.

Awarding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 patent licenses in Australia

Patentable subject matter

Although Australia's Patents Act 1990, [13] prohibits patenting 'human beings and the biological processes for their generation', [14] : p 105  in recent times virtually no class of patent matter has been held unpatentable by the courts. Like the USPTO, the Australian Patent Office accepts applications for human gene and gene sequences, provided that they have been separated from the human body. [14] : p 105  In Bristol-Myers Squibb, Finkelstein J declared that it was up to the Australian Parliament to amend the Patents Act 1990 if it did not consider medical treatment patentable. [14] : p 108  In 2015, the High Court of Australia unanimously ruled that isolated nucleic acid does not qualify as proper subject matter for patent protection. [15] This decision moves Australia's laws regarding patentable subject matter closer towards those of the US.

Tests

Under section 18 of the Patents Act 1990, a patent can only be granted if the subject matter is a manner of manufacture (invention) within section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies 1623, which is novel and involves an inventive step when compared to the prior art base, and is useful. [14] : p 99  In light of the absence of special treatment for biotechnology-related processes, and the innovativeness and usefulness of its patents, it is unlikely that Genetic Technologies' BRCA licenses could be successfully contested under Australian patent law.

Challenges to license validity

Under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, a corporation with a substantial degree of market power is prohibited from taking advantage of its power to substantially damage competition. [14] : p 122  However, recent court decisions have been reluctant to apply this section to invalidate patents. [14] For example, in Warman International v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd, Wilcox J held that "to exercise in good faith an extraneous legal right, though the effect may be to lessen, or even eliminate competition, is to take advantage of that right, not of market power." [14] [16] Given the broad claims of gene sequence patents, such as the BRCA patents licensed to Genetic Technologies, and the courts' limited regard for anti-competition provisions, it is unlikely that Genetic Technologies' monopoly could be contested under the Trade Practices Act 1974. This could potentially limit the availability of products and processes related to the BRCA genes. [14] : p 128 

Application of BRCA1 and BRCA2 patent licenses in Australian market

Monopolistic behaviour

Genetic Technologies has had less success than Myriad Genetics in enforcing its exclusive rights to BRCA gene testing in its home country. Genetic Technologies has made multiple attempts to force other laboratories to stop performing BRCA tests, but yielded to public pressure to cease its attempts. [2]

Accessibility of BRCA Testing

The Australian Law Reform Commission has declined to recommend amendments to gene patent and licensing laws on the basis that there is a lack of evidence that gene patenting and licensing has significantly affected Australian health care costs. [12] The BRCA test would have cost A$2,100 through Genetic Technologies, but public laboratory BRCA tests are subsidised by the federal government. [2]

Genetic Technologies' failure to enforce its patent rights may embolden other players in the biomedical industry to pursue research and development related to patented gene sequences. Conversely, it could serve as a demotivator for Genetic Technologies. The effects of gene patents on development in the medical industry will become clearer when an Australian Senate inquiry report is released in June 2010. [2]

US court decision on gene patents

On 29 March 2010, Judge Robert Sweet of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found that there was no evidence Myriad Genetics went to any great length in inventing a process to isolate the genes in question. As such he dismissed the case on a summary hearing in favour of the plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union, as being the 'longest of long shots'. [17] Justice Sweet found no evidence which could be considered by a jury in favour of the defendant, and dismissed the argument that the gene should be patented on the basis that it was isolated from the human body, referring to the practice as a 'lawyers trick'. [18] Myriad Genetics has claimed it will appeal the decision up to the US Supreme Court to obtain an authoritative and binding decision, which they have lost as of 15 June 2013. [19]

Myriad Genetics has a number of possible arguments that it could put forward in any forthcoming appeals, and will likely be focussing on the law surrounding validation of gene patents based on their isolation. The company argues that the fact that it has been able to isolate the genes should be considered. This is a direct derivative of the black letter law which states that if the gene was newly isolated and characterised, then it was not a mere discovery; it was an industrially applicable technical solution to a technical problem. [20]

Conversely, the notion that the patenting of human genes is invalid may have support in the decision reached in the Howard Florey/Relaxin case, [21] where an attempt was made to take out a patent on a naturally occurring human hormone. The verdict from this case stated that 'to find a substance freely occurring in nature is a mere discovery and therefore not patentable. However, if the substance found in nature has first to be isolated from its surroundings and a process for obtaining it is developed, that process is patentable.'

Implications of the court's decision on the US industry

The President and CEO of Myriad Genetics, Peter Meldrum, claims that the existence of gene patents and their granting to young start-up biotechnology companies is crucial for the development of the industry. He said that the decision to invalidate the patents would stifle the industry by not giving the needed support and incentives for biotechnology start-ups. The American Civil Liberties Union counters that with the patents now invalidated, the industry will prosper due to the gene or DNA in question now not being reserved exclusively for a particular group of industry participants.

Relevance of the US court decision to Australia

The US court decision will have no official bearing on Australian percent as the jurisdictions are entirely separate, and as such the doctrine of stare decesis will not apply. However, the close alignment of the two countries' legal systems and business interests may signal knock-on effects in Australia, with the potential for the US verdict to establish persuasive precedent.

The stance of the Australian Government and subsequent policy decisions regarding the validity of gene patents are likely to be shaped by two competing issues; one being the government's objective to encourage innovation, and the other of whether to follow a trend to allow the legal patenting of human genes, as has been the case in the US.

Australian policy direction on gene patents

Australian Law Reform Commission report

A report into human genes and health was released by the ALRC in 2004. [22] It contained 50 key recommendations, none of which were directed solely at the patenting of genetic materials and technologies; proposing specific laws for genetic materials and technologies may have implications for Australia's compliance with various obligations under several international trade agreements. Recommendations were directed at improvements in the patent system more generally, with many encouraging greater utilisation of existing mechanisms currently within the Patents Act 1990 and the Trade Practices Act 1974. The report explicitly recommended that social or ethical concerns should not be added as unequivocal grounds for excluding an invention from patentability under the Patents Act 1990. The ALRC did concede, however, that arguments in favour of a ban on genetic information were 'attractive'. [23]

The ALRC's report focussed on a number of areas and detailed recommendations on how each of these areas could be improved. A significant section of the report was Part B: Patent Laws and Practices, which describes the system of obtaining, maintaining and challenging patent protection in Australia, providing international comparisons where relevant.

The ALRC concluded that inventions involving genetic materials and technologies should be assessed according to the same legislative criteria as other inventions, however it found that gene patents do highlight issues of an invention's 'usefulness' under Australian law. In response to this concern, the ALRC recommended reforms to increase the burden of proof on applicants to show 'usefulness' during the standard patent application process. The fundamental idea behind this is to enable registered patents to withstand potential challenges. Such a recommendation is reliant on the development of specific guidelines to assist patent examiners in applying any revised 'usefulness' requirements.

A striking finding of the ALRC report was that due to existing impediments to amending the Patents Act 1990 such as international treaty obligations and the reliance of the biotechnology industry on patents for revenue, the Act 'should not be amended to exclude genetic materials or technologies for, patentability; or to provide a new medical treatment exclusion; or to expand the existing circumstances in which social and ethical considerations may be taken into account in decisions about granting patents'. [22] Given the size and nature of the Australian biotechnology industry, such a conclusion was likely expected, as patent licensing is particularly important to facilitate further research. Additionally, as evidence at the time did not suggest that restrictive licensing practices were pervasive in the industry, it was consequently recommended that the nation's peak industry body, AusBiotech Ltd, should develop model licensing agreements for the industry. Recommendations did not extend to a statutory licensing scheme.

Another major recommendation of the ALRC was to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to clarify the relationship between Part IV of the Act and international property rights. Moreover, healthcare bodies were urged to make use of existing complaint procedures under the TPA, especially where evidence of anti-competitive conduct existed.

Overall, the ALRC report's recommendations do not require legislative change, but rather they involve the development of revised guidelines or alternative action by the government and/or non-governmental organisations.

Australian Senate inquiry

Further debate and discussion surrounding the issue of gene patentability was conducted between 2008 and 2010 by the Australian Senate Community Affairs Committee with its Inquiry into Gene Patents.

Noteworthy submissions such as that from Cancer Council Australia urged the government to outright exclude gene sequences and other related findings from the definition of patentable subject matter, as a long-term solution to increasing cost and access problems associated with patented genetic material. [24] The submission details how gene patenting can actively discourage scientific research and discovery to a larger extent that it rewards innovation. While conceding that legislative action alone is not an effective long-term solution, the Cancer Council stresses the importance of increasing the availability of resources to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. This proposed solution is in line with the ALRC's report recommendation for a more extensive application of the Trade Practices Act 1974. [22]

These views were not shared by the Australian biotechnology industry, as represented by AusBiotech. AusBiotech's submission to the inquiry sends a message to the Senate that such patents have global relevance across the industry, and further details how the need for patent protection in the biotechnology industry is the starting point for the development of potential products. [25] The submission concluded that any proposed amendment to current legislation would prevent a significant proportion of the Australian biotechnology industry from protecting innovations, resulting in an adverse effect on potential commercialisation opportunities and reduced investment. The end result would be argued as having a detrimental effect on the Australian healthcare and medical research industries.

In 2010, the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee inquiry into Gene Patents concludes. A divided Committee did not support a ban on human genetic materials but rejects IP Australia's justification for patenting genetic information. [23]

Senator Bill Heffernan, a minority member of the committee, introduces a private members bill to ban the patenting of human genetic materials and 'biological materials' drafted with the assistance of Sydney-based IP lawyer and academic, Dr Luigi Palombi. [26]

Senator Heffernan's Patents Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010 was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for review in 2011 and rejected after fierce lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry. At the inquiry, Australia's Department of Health and Ageing presented evidence supporting the "intention" of the Bill, but not its specific language. [23]

Possible causes of action

The case for invalidation of gene patents in Australia seems unlikely, chiefly because of the growing nature of the biotechnology industry and its inherently high dependence on patents.

Existing invalidation mechanisms in the Patents Act 1990 seem to offer little assistance in the matter. Section 50(1)(a) of the Act gives the Commissioner of Patents the discretion to reject a patent application on the grounds that the use of the invention would be contrary to law. [27] In deciding whether to exercise this discretionary power, an examiner must have close regard to whether an invention is primarily intended for an unlawful use. Gene patents are generally described to have a lawful use for their invention, thus they have not been excluded on this ground. As at May 2010, no Australian regulation makes the use of gene-related inventions unlawful. [28]

As a member of the World Trade Organization, Australia is required to comply with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agreement, that specifically requires patents to be made available for all fields of technology without discrimination. [29] Any attempt by Australian legislators to alter the Patents Act 1990 by introducing a higher threshold of patentability or a general exclusion for gene technologies may breach obligations under TRIPS. While TRIPS does offer some provisions for exceptions, [29] the full impact of these sections would adversely affect the level of domestic innovation and cross-country trading.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BRCA1</span> Gene known for its role in breast cancer

Breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein is a protein that in humans is encoded by the BRCA1 gene. Orthologs are common in other vertebrate species, whereas invertebrate genomes may encode a more distantly related gene. BRCA1 is a human tumor suppressor gene and is responsible for repairing DNA.

As with all utility patents in the United States, a biological patent provides the patent holder with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention or discovery in biology for a limited period of time - for patents filed after 1998, 20 years from the filing date.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented. Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter". Justice William J. Brennan Jr., along with Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell Jr., dissented from the Court's ruling, arguing that because Congress had not expressly authorized the patenting of biological organisms, the Court should not extend patent law to cover them.

The USA is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the World. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting of a patented technology without the consent of the patent-holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter of an invention that is considered appropriate for patent protection in a given jurisdiction. The laws and practices of many countries stipulate that certain types of inventions should be denied patent protection. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility, and industrial applicability, which differ from country to country, the question of whether a particular subject matter is patentable is one of the substantive requirements for patentability.

The Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) was a nonprofit NGO with a focus on biotechnology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Myriad Genetics</span> American biotechnology company

Myriad Genetics, Inc. is an American genetic testing and precision medicine company based in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. Myriad employs a number of proprietary technologies that permit doctors and patients to understand the genetic basis of human disease and the role that genes play in the onset, progression and treatment of disease. This information is used to guide the development of new products that assess an individual's risk for developing disease later in life, identify a patient's likelihood of responding to a particular drug therapy, assess a patient's risk of disease progression and disease recurrence, and measure disease activity.

Predictive medicine is a field of medicine that entails predicting the probability of disease and instituting preventive measures in order to either prevent the disease altogether or significantly decrease its impact upon the patient.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IP Australia</span> Australian government agency

IP Australia is an Australian Government agency, responsible for administering intellectual property law in Australia. The agency manages the registration of patents, trade marks, registered designs and plant breeder's rights in Australia. The agency sits under the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. From 1904 until 1998, the responsible government agency was called the Australian Patent Office (APO), which is now a division within IP Australia. The headquarters are located at Discovery House in Canberra, Australia, with offices in some capital cities. IP Australia has been an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) for patent applications filed in accordance with the Patent Co-operation Treaty since 31 March 1980. Australia is also a member of the Madrid system for trade marks, the Paris Convention for designs and the UPOV for plant breeder's rights.

GeneDx is a genetic testing company that was founded in 2000 by two scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Sherri Bale and John Compton. They started the company to provide clinical diagnostic services for patients and families with rare and ultra-rare disorders, for which no such commercial testing was available at the time. The company started in the Technology Development Center, a biotech incubator supported by the state of Maryland and Montgomery County, MD. In 2006, BioReference Laboratories acquired GeneDx. Since then, GeneDx has operated as a subsidiary of this parent company under the leadership of Bale and Compton. In October 2016, Benjamin D. Solomon was appointed as managing director.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tania Simoncelli</span>

Tania Simoncelli is Senior Advisor to the Director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Prior to that position, she worked for two years as Assistant Director for Forensic Science and Biomedical Innovation within the Office of Science and Technology Policy. From 2010 to 2013, she worked in the Food and Drug Administration's Office of the Commissioner. From 2003 to 2010, Simoncelli worked as the Science Advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where she advised the organization on emerging developments in science and technology that pose challenges for civil liberties.

<i>BRCA</i> mutation Medical condition

A BRCA mutation is a mutation in either of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are tumour suppressor genes. Hundreds of different types of mutations in these genes have been identified, some of which have been determined to be harmful, while others have no proven impact. Harmful mutations in these genes may produce a hereditary breast–ovarian cancer syndrome in affected persons. Only 5–10% of breast cancer cases in women are attributed to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, but the impact on women with the gene mutation is more profound. Women with harmful mutations in either BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a risk of breast cancer that is about five times the normal risk, and a risk of ovarian cancer that is about ten to thirty times normal. The risk of breast and ovarian cancer is higher for women with a high-risk BRCA1 mutation than with a BRCA2 mutation. Having a high-risk mutation does not guarantee that the woman will develop any type of cancer, or imply that any cancer that appears was actually caused by the mutation, rather than some other factor.

<i>In the Family</i> (2008 film) 2008 American film

In the Family is a 2008 documentary film, produced by Kartemquin Films, about predicting breast and ovarian cancer and the choices women make when they are faced with the dangers of a possible life-threatening disease. The film's director, Joanna Rudnick, tests positive for the familial BRCA mutation that increases her chances of developing breast cancer by 60%. Faced with these odds, Rudnick must examine her choices of possibly taking her chances or possibly having her breasts and ovaries removed.

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a limited period of time. The scope and reach of biological patents vary among jurisdictions, and may include biological technology and products, genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The applicability of patents to substances and processes wholly or partially natural in origin is a subject of debate.

A variant of uncertainsignificance (VUS) is a genetic variant that has been identified through genetic testing but whose significance to the function or health of an organism is not known. Two related terms are "gene of uncertain significance" (GUS), which refers to a gene that has been identified through genome sequencing but whose connection to a human disease has not been established, and "insignificant mutation", referring to a gene variant that has no impact on the health or function of an organism. The term "variant' is favored in clinical practice over "mutation" because it can be used to describe an allele more precisely. When the variant has no impact on health, it is called a "benign variant". When it is associated with a disease, it is called a "pathogenic variant". A "pharmacogenomic variant" has an effect only when an individual takes a particular drug and therefore is neither benign nor pathogenic.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided, that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” However, as a "bizzare conciliatory prize" the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding base pair sequence as the natural DNA, albeit with introns removed.

<i>In re Roslin Institute</i> (Edinburgh) 2014 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014), is a 2014 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejecting a patent for a cloned sheep known as "Dolly the Sheep"— the first mammal ever cloned from an adult somatic cell.

The Association for Molecular Pathology is a professional association of individuals serving patients through molecular diagnostics testing. Founded in 1995, the Association has more than 2,800 members in over 50 countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patentable subject matter in the United States</span>

Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The current patentable subject matter practice in the U.S. is very different from the corresponding practices by WIPO/Patent Cooperation Treaty, and it is considered to be broader in general. Since the enactment of the subject matter requirement ca. 1970, the interpretation of the statute changed multiple times. Although Section 101 of Title 35 U.S.C. reads:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

References

  1. ↑ "Genetic Technologies – Personalizing Health". Gtglabs.com.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Lyons, Jane (12 April 2010). "The profit strand". The Age.
  3. ↑ "Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Community Affairs: Inquiry into Gene Patents". Archived from the original on 7 January 2009. Retrieved 27 November 2008.
  4. ↑ Holman, C.M., "The impact of human gene patents on innovation and access: a survey of human gene patent litigation", UMKC Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 2, 2007, p296
  5. ↑ Gold, E.R., "Gene patents and medical access", Intellectual Property Forum, No. 49, 2002, p20
  6. 1 2 3 Gold, E.R., "Gene patents and medical access", Intellectual Property Forum, No. 49, 2002, p21
  7. 1 2 3 4 Williams-Jones, B. (2002). "History of a gene patent: tracing the development and application of commercial BRCA testing" (PDF). Health Law Journal. 10: 123–146. PMID   14748275.
  8. ↑ Holman, C.M., "The impact of human gene patents on innovation and access: a survey of human gene patent litigation", UMKC Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 2, 2007, p355
  9. ↑ Holman, C.M., "The impact of human gene patents on innovation and access: a survey of human gene patent litigation", UMKC Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 2, 2007, p299
  10. ↑ Sharon, B., "Who owns your DNA", Newsweek, Vol. 155, No. 7, p. 22
  11. ↑ Sharon, B., "Who owns your DNA", Newsweek, Vol. 155, No. 7, 2010, p. 22
  12. 1 2 Hinojosa, J.P. (2004). "The human genome, property of all: opportunities under the ALRC inquiry into gene patenting and human health". Sydney Law Review. (2004) 26(3) Sydney Law Review 447 p 452.
  13. ↑ Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lawson, C (2002). "Patenting genes and gene sequences and competition: patenting at the expense of competition". Federal Law Review. 30: 97–133. doi:10.1177/0067205X0203000104. (2002) 30 Federal Law Review 97.
  15. ↑ D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35.
  16. ↑ Warman International v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 205 , (1986) 11 FCR 478.
  17. ↑ Vorhaus, D (29 March 2010). "Breaking: District Court Rules Myriad Breast Cancer Patents Invalid". Genomics Law Report. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  18. ↑ Tribune, The Salt Lake. "Utah Local News – Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive – The Salt Lake Tribune". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  19. ↑ "Gene Patents Supreme Court Implications for Biotechnology". Archived from the original on 12 January 2015. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
  20. ↑ "Bioethics and Patent Law: The Relaxin Case". Wipo.int. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  21. ↑ EPOR 541 1995
  22. 1 2 3 "Genes and Ingenuity: Gene patenting and human health". [2004] Australian Law Reform Commission Reports 99.
  23. 1 2 3 "You Are Not A Drug". Newnatilda.com. 5 July 2012. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  24. ↑ Senate inquiry into gene patents; Cancer Council Australia, Clinical Oncological Society of Australia March 2009.
  25. ↑ Dr Anna Lavelle, CEO AusBiotech (19 November 2009). "Inquiry into Gen Patents: Comment on Submissions" (PDF). AusBiotech. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  26. ↑ Palombi, Luigi. "Who owns the rights to the human body? It's patently obvious".
  27. ↑ "Patent Examiners Manual". Ipaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  28. ↑ "Senate Community Affairs Committee: Inquiry into Gene Patents", Department of Innovation Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia.
  29. 1 2 "WTO – intellectual property (TRIPS) – agreement text – standards". Wto.org. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.