Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:07:02.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In the Aftermath of D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc: Patenting Isolated Nucleic Acids in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Emanuela Gambini
Emanuela Gambini*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary-University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On 7 October 2015 the High Court of Australia unanimously allowed the appeal on D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc and ordered that claims 1, 2 and 3 of Australian Patent No 686004, entitled “In vivo mutations and polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene”, be revoked.

The High Court's judgment overturned the decisions of Justice Nicholas of the Federal Court, at first instance, and the Full Federal Court. This case note provides an overview of the High Court's decision and discusses its meaning and implications for patenting isolated nucleic acids in Australia.

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 451 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In Australia, Myriad was granted Aus. Patent No. 691958 “17qlinked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene” and Aus. Patent No. 686004 “In vivo mutations and polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene”, which was challenged in D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc.

2 On Myriad's foundation, see Myriad's history webpage, available on the Internet at <https://www.myriad.com/about-myriad/inside-myriad/history/> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

3 The BRCA1 gene was discovered in 1990, and is a tumor-suppressor gene, linked to genetic breast and ovarian cancer. Women who have a mutation of this gene tend to have a high incidence of breast cancer, as well as ovarian cancer. In 1995 the BRCA2 gene was mapped and sequenced. While BRCA1 affects only women and also carries an increased risk of ovarian cancer, BRCA2 raises the risk of breast cancer alone, and it can affect both women and men. Wert, Guido De, Meulen, Ruud Ter, Roberto Mordacci and Mariachiara Tallacchini, Ethics and Genetics. A Workbook for Practitioners and Students (Oxford-New York: Berghahn Books, 2003).Google Scholar On the discovery of BRCA1 and 2 genes see also Parthasarathy, Shobita, Building Genetic Medicine. Breast Cancer, Technology, and the Comparative Politics of Health Care (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2007), at pp. 3–7.Google Scholar

4 In the United States the “product category” of the challenged patents before the Courts included: (a) claims that covered the isolated BRCA genes (claim 1 of the ‘282 patent, claim 1 of the ‘473 patent, and claims 1 and 6 of the ‘492 patent); (b) claims that covered only the BRCA cDNA (claims 2 and 7 of the ‘282 patent and claim 7 of the ‘492 patent); claims that covered portions of the BRCA genes and cDNA as small as 15 nucleotides long (claims 5 and 6 of the ‘282 patent). The “method category” encompassed method claims directed at comparing or analyzing a patient's altered BRCA sequence with the normal one or wildtype one to identify the presence of cancer-predisposing mutations (e.g. claim 1 of the ‘999 and ‘001 patents)

5 For example, Aus. Patent No. 686004.

6 For example, European Patent EP699754.

7 For example, European Patent EP705902.

8 In the United States the Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP), The American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG), The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), The College of American Pathologists (CAP), several cancer researchers and genetic counselors, as well as some women potentially carrying BRCA1 and 2 mutated genes.

9 On the opposition to Myriad's patents concerning BRCA1 and 2 genes, see Jordan Paradise, “European Opposition to Exclusive Control Over Predictive Breast Cancer Testing and the Inherent Implications for U.S. Patent Law and Public Policy: A Case Study of the Myriad Genetics’ BRCA Patent Controversy”, 59 Food & Drug Law Journal (2004), pp. 133 et sqq. See also Gert Matthijs and Gert–Jan B. Van Ommen, “Gene Patents: From Discovery to Invention. A Geneticist's View”, in Geertrui Van Overwalle (ed.), Gene Patents and Collaborative Licensing Models. Patent Pools, Clearinghouses, Open Source Models and Liability Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 311 et sqq.

10 Jordan Paradise, “European Opposition to Exclusive Control Over Predictive Breast Cancer Testing and the Inherent Implications for U.S. Patent Law and Public Policy: A Case Study of the Myriad Genetics’ BRCA Patent Controversy”, cit., at pp. 138 et sqq.

11 Supreme Court of the United States, Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., 13 June 2013, 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013), available on the Internet at <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf> (last accessed 15 March 2016).

12 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, available on the Internet at <http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2015/HCA/35> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

13 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115, 107 IPR 478.

14 The term “an isolated nucleic acid”, as defined in the complete specification, includes DNA, RNA or a mixed polymer, “which is substantially separated from other cellular components which naturally accompany a native human sequence or protein”. See High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 2.

15 See Cancer Voices Australia's website, available on the Internet at <http://www.cancervoicesaustralia.org/about-us/> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

16 Federal Court of Australia, Cancer Voices Australia and Another v Myriad Genetics Inc and Another, 15 February 2013, [2013] FCA 65, 99 IPR 567.

17 Section 138(3)(b) of Patents Act 1990 sets out as ground of revocation “that the invention is not a patentable invention”. Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 138(3)(b), available on the Internet at <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s138.html> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

18 Australian Patent No 686004, “In vivo mutations and Polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast susceptibility gene”, available on the Internet at <http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do;jsessionid=1hyrWyKdDdtMTG4qJL31qJLpx3yfrpj9MJch7ZTpCQ7ctskbhhlp&excl;-1718864290>.

19 Australian Patent No 686004, “In vivo mutations and Polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast susceptibility gene”, supra note 18, at p. 1.

20 Federal Court of Australia, Cancer Voices Australia and Another v Myriad Genetics and Another, 15 February 2013, [2013] FCA 65, 99 IPR 567.

21 Federal Court of Australia, Cancer Voices Australia and Another v Myriad Genetics and Another, 15 February 2013, [2013] FCA 65, 99 IPR 567.

22 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics and Another, 5 September 2014, [2014] FCAFC 115, 107 IPR 478.

23 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics and Another, 5 September 2014, [2014] FCAFC 115, 107 IPR 478.

24 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics and Another, 5 September 2014, [2014] FCAFC 115, 107 IPR 478.

25 Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 138(3)(b), available on the Internet at <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s138.html> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

26 Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 18(1)(a), available on the Internet at <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s18.html> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

27 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, available on the Internet at <http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2015/HCA/35> (last accessed on 15 March 2016), at p. 7.

28 The Patents Act 1990, Sched 1, definition of “invention”, available on the Internet at <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/sch1.html> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

29 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, 115 IPR 1, supra note 12, at p. 8.

30 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at pp. 8-9.

31 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 3.

32 Statute of Monopolies, s 6, 21 Jac I c 3 (1624).

33 On the meaning and background of the term “manner of manufacture” in Australian patent law, see Davison, Mark J., Monotti, Ann L., Wiseman, Leanne, Australian Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed. (Port Melbourne AU: Cambridge University Press, 2016), at pp. 456–463.Google Scholar

34 On the decision of the High Court of Australia in NRDC and its impact on Australian patent law see Hubicki, Stephen and Sherman, Brad, “We Have Never Been Modern: the High Court's Decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents”, in Keyton, Andrew T., Richardson, Megan and Ricketson, Sam (eds), Landmarks in Australian Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 73 et sqq.Google Scholar

35 National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, (1959) 102 CLR 252, at p. 277. Emphasis added.

36 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at pp. 3 and 15.

37 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 18.

38 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at pp. 18-19.

39 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 19.

40 World Trade Organization, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPs Agreement, art. 27 Patentable Subject Matter, available on the Internet at <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

41 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 21.

42 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 24.

43 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 23.

44 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 41.

45 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 42.

46 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at pp. 41-42.

47 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 43.

48 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 53.

49 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 53.

50 Full Court, Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd, (1959) 102 CLR 232; [1959] HCA 71. N V Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd, (1995) 183 CLR 655, at pp. 663-665 per Brennan, Deane and Toohey; [1995] HCA 15.

51 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 57.

52 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 67.

53 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at pp. 66-67.

54 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 80.

55 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 82.

56 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at pp. 83 and 90.

57 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 90.

58 Australian Patent Office, “Examination Practice Following the High Court Decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc”, available on the Internet at <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/consultaiton_submissions/20151214_Examination_practice_following_the_High_Court_decision_in_D'Arcy_v_Myriad_Genetics_Inc.pdf> (last accessed on 15 March 2016), pp. 1 et sqq.

59 Australian Government–IP Australia, News, Events and Publications, available on the Internet at <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/news-media-and-events/latest-news-listing/examination-practice> (last accessed on 15 March 2016). 60 The Commissioner of Patents invited all the interested parties to make submissions by 6 November 2015. Australian Government–IP Australia, Public Consultations, available on the Internet at <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/public-consultations/Revised-examination-practice-following-the-High-Court-decision-D'ArcyvMyriad-Genetics-Inc/> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

61 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, available on the Internet at <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patentsmanual/WebHelp/Patent_Examiners_Manual.htm> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

62 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.2.6 Nucleic Acids and Genetic Information”, available on the Internet at <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patentsmanual/WebHelp/Patent_Examiners_Manual.htm> (last accessed on 15 March 2016).

63 Simmons, David P. and Wickham, Mark E., “Gene Patents in Australia: Where Do We Stand?”, 30 Nature Biotechnology (2012), at p. 232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

64 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Board of Regents of University of Washington, (1995) 33 IPR 557.

65 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, supra note 61.

66 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, supra note 61.

67 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, supra note 61.

68 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, supra note 61.

69 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, supra note 61.

70 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, supra note 61.

71 Australian Patent Office, Manual of Practice and Procedure, “2.9.1 Principles for Examination”, supra note 61.

72 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, available on the Internet at <http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2015/HCA/35> (last accessed on 15 March 2016), at pp. 18-19.

73 O’Connell, Kim and Ellsmore, James, “Isolated Nucleic Acid Sequences No Longer Patentable in Australia: D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc ”, 15 Bio-Science Law Review (2016), pp. 25 et sqq., at pp. 29-30.Google Scholar

74 Fogle, Thomas, “The Dissolution of Protein Coding Genes in Molecular Biology”, in Beurton, Peter, Falk, Raphael and Rheinberger, Hans–Jörg (eds), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 3 et sqq.Google Scholar

75 Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg, “Gene Concepts. Fragments from the Perspective of Molecular Biology, in Beurton, Peter, Falk, Raphael and Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (eds), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 219 et sqq., at p. 221.Google Scholar

76 Sarkar, Sahotra, “Biological Information: A Skeptical Look at Some Central Dogmas of Molecular Biology”, in Sarkar, Sahotra (ed.), The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996), at p. 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, “Gene Concepts. Fragments from the Perspective of Molecular Biology, supra note 75, at p. 221.

78 Star, Susan Leigh and Griesmer, James R., ‘Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907-1939’, 19 Social Studies of Science 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-38”, supra note 78, at p. 393.

80 Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, “Gene Concepts. Fragments from the Perspective of Molecular Biology, supra note 75, at p. 220.

81 Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, “Gene Concepts. Fragments from the Perspective of Molecular Biology, supra note 75, at p. 221. Emphasis added.

82 Sherman, Brad, “D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc: Patenting Genes in Australia”, 37 Sydney Law Review (2015), pp. 135 et sqq., at p. 136.Google Scholar

83 Brad Sherman, “D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc: Patenting Genes in Australia”, supra note 82, at p. 144.

84 Brad Sherman, “D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc: Patenting Genes in Australia”, supra note 82, at p. 144.

85 Boyle, James, Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), at p. 7.Google Scholar

86 High Court of Australia, D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, 7 October 2015, [2015] HCA 35, supra note 12, at p. 5.