You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Ad Hoc Government Discussion Papers >>
2002 >>
[2002] NZAHGovDP 5
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Review of the Patents Act 1953: Boundaries to patentability. A discussion paper [2002] NZAHGovDP 5 (2 April 2002)
Last Updated: 12 July 2020
Review of the Patents Act 1953: Boundaries to
Patentability
A Discussion Paper March 2002
ISBN 0-478-24283-8
© Crown Copyright
First published March 2002 by the Regulatory and Competition Policy Branch
Ministry of Economic Development
P O Box 1473 Wellington New Zealand
http://www.med.govt.nz
Permission to reproduce: The copyright owner authorises reproduction of
this work, in whole or in part, so long as no charge is made for the supply of
copies,
and the integrity and attribution of the work as a publication of the
Ministry of Economic Development is not interfered with in
any way.
Disclaimer
The opinions contained in this publication are those of
the Ministry of Economic Development and do not reflect official government
policy.
Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice from a qualified professional
before undertaking any action in reliance on the
contents of this publication.
While every effort has been made to ensure that the information set out in this
publication is accurate,
the Crown does not accept any responsibility whether in
contract, tort, equity or otherwise, for any action taken, or reliance placed
on, any part, or all, of the information in this publication or for any error in
or omission from this publication.
Contents
Foreword
In putting forward the
government’s innovation strategy, the Prime Minister has stressed the need
to enhance the innovation
system. As the Prime Minister noted, an important
element of this is enhancing New Zealand’s intellectual property
framework.
This review of the Patents Act 1953 will contribute to the
government’s goal of growing an innovative New Zealand and will
help to
ensure that New Zealand gains the greatest value from its innovations.
A modern patent system is essential if New Zealand innovators are to have the
incentive to invest in research and development. A
modern patent system is also
necessary to encourage the transfer of technology to New Zealand by overseas
innovators, so that New
Zealand businesses have access to the technology and
know-how needed to compete effectively in international markets.
The Patents Act 1953 is nearly fifty years old and is in need of a substantial
overhaul. In August 2000, the government agreed to
a three-stage review of the
Act to take account of the social and technological changes since the Act was
passed. Stages 1 and 2
of the review, which have already been completed, dealt
with technical and operational changes to the Act for which substantial
agreement
has already been reached.
Stage 3 of the review considers a number of issues that have arisen since the
Act was passed and that it does not adequately address.
These include the
Act’s definition of invention and its ability to deal with new
technologies, whether or not there should
be exclusions to patentability, and
the patentability of medical treatments, computer software and business
methods.
The concerns of Māori and others regarding the granting of patents for
plants and animals, and for inventions involving genetic
material and genetic
modification also need to be considered. Māori concerns regarding the
granting of patents for inventions
involving traditional knowledge will be
explored.
These issues have been the subject of considerable public debate, both in New
Zealand and overseas. The government has therefore
decided to release this
discussion document seeking public input before making any final decision on
these matters.
We would welcome your submissions on the matters discussed in the document as a
first step in the government’s consideration
of these issues.
Hon Laila Harré
Associate Minister of Commerce
Hon Paul Swain
Minister of Commerce
Information for Persons Making Submissions
Submissions in relation to
this discussion paper are invited from inventors, scientists, patent owners,
users of patented inventions,
and members of the public. Submissions will be
considered in the development of policy recommendations to the government on
possible
legislative reform. Readers should note that a discussion of the plant
variety rights system in New Zealand appears in Review of the Plant Variety
Rights Act 1987: A Discussion Paper.
To aid respondents in making submissions, questions for discussion can be found
at the end of sections 3 – 8.
Submissions should be sent to:
Patents Act Review Submissions Attention: Warren Hassett
Regulatory and Competition Policy Branch Ministry of Economic Development
PO Box 1473 WELLINGTON
Emailed submissions are also welcome. They should be addressed to: warren.hassett@med.govt.nz
Submissions may be subject to disclosure under the Official Information Act
1982. Persons making submissions that include commercially
or otherwise
sensitive material that they wish the Ministry to withhold under the Act should
clearly identify the relevant information
and the applicable grounds under which
the Ministry could withhold the information.
The closing date for submissions is Friday 26 July
2002.
1. The Present Patent System and Its Rationale
What Is a Patent?
- The
Patents Act 1953 is one of several New Zealand statutes providing rights in
“intellectual property”, that is, products
of the mind. The other
statutes include the Designs Act 1953, the Trade Marks Act 1953, the Plant
Variety Rights Act 1987, and the Copyright Act 1994.
- Under
the Patents Act 1953, a patent may be granted for any invention that is a
“manner of new manufacture”. The grant
of a patent for an invention
provides the patent owner with a right to exclude others from making, using or
selling the patented
invention during the term of the patent. A New Zealand
patent can have a maximum term of twenty years from the date of filing of
the
patent application. In return for the grant of a patent, the owner must make
public a complete description of the invention.
Patents are granted after an
examination process by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ,
the business name of
the New Zealand Patent Office).
- Effectively,
a patent is a limited form of monopoly right. In other spheres, monopolies may
not be in the public interest because
of the reduced choice and higher prices
that may result. These factors impose economic costs on society. The grant of a
patent,
however, is considered to be justified, because, in return for granting
this temporary monopoly, society benefits from something
that it did not have
before: the disclosure of an invention that is new and
innovative.
- This
does not mean that the costs associated with monopolistic behaviour are not
present, rather a well designed patent system should
maximise the net benefits
that society achieves from innovations that are occurring both inside and
outside that society.
Why Should Patents Be Granted?
- If
there were no patent system, it would be possible for anyone to copy a new
invention and profit from it without having to bear
the costs of developing the
invention. Since the costs of copying many inventions can be substantially less
than the development
costs, this would allow the copier to sell the invention at
a lower price than the original inventor, which may make it difficult
or
impossible for the inventor to profit from the invention. This could mean that
businesses or individuals would have little incentive
to invest in research and
development, or would only invest in those inventions that could be kept secret.
If businesses are not
provided with adequate incentive to invest in research and
development, economic growth may be inhibited.
- The
grant of a patent, by providing the owner with a limited monopoly, gives the
owner an opportunity to make a profit from the invention.
The possibility of a
return on the patent owner’s investment in developing the invention
provides the incentive that is the
main justification for the granting of
patents. It is this incentive for research and development that is the main
justification
for the patent system.
- In
most countries, an invention will be considered to be a “genuine
innovation” which may be eligible for patent protection
if it meets the
following criteria:
- it is new
– an invention is considered to be new if a description of the invention
has not been published, or the invention
has not been publicly used before the
filing date of an application to patent the invention;
- it involves an
inventive step – an invention is considered to involve an inventive step
if the invention would not have been
obvious to an appropriately skilled
person;
- it has to be
“useful”1 – an invention is considered to be useful
if the inventor has identified a practical use for the
invention.
These three criteria are now recognised internationally to be the minimum
requirements for the grant of a patent.
- If
patents are granted for inventions that are not genuine innovations, society is
giving away a valuable property right without receiving
anything of comparable
value in return. That is, the cost to society of such patents would exceed the
benefits.
- The
grant of patents for inventions that are not innovations could also mean that
technologies that would otherwise be free for anyone
to use and exploit would no
longer be freely available. This could discourage research and development in
those technologies, as
it would not be possible to commercially exploit any new
developments arising from the research and development without infringing
a
patent. This could severely limit the ability of New Zealand researchers to
develop new products and technologies, which would
impose a further cost on New
Zealand.
- This
is particularly important as New Zealand is a net importer of technology, with
most New Zealand patents being granted to non-residents,
as the table below
shows:
Grants of New Zealand Patents (2001)
|
Non-residents
|
Total
|
376
|
4351
|
4727
|
- The
grant of a patent gives the patent owner an opportunity to charge a higher price
for the patented invention than would be the
case if a patent had not been
granted. As most New Zealand patents are granted to non-residents, much of any
extra revenue that patent
owners might earn would flow overseas. This would
increase the economic cost to New Zealand of granting patents for things that
are
not innovations.
- Since
most of the benefits of New Zealand’s patent system flow overseas, or
would occur even if New Zealand did not have a patent
system, the patent system
may provide little net benefit to New Zealand. This makes it all the more
important that patents are only
granted for inventions that are real
innovations. This suggests that the criteria for granting a patent should be as
strict as possible,
and applied rigorously by IPONZ.
1 Some countries use the term “capable of
industrial application” rather than “useful.”
- If,
however, New Zealand does not provide adequate levels of patent protection,
innovators in other countries may be unwilling to
allow their inventions to be
exploited here. This means that New Zealand businesses may not have access to
new technologies that
they need to become internationally competitive. Lack of
adequate protection in New Zealand may also mean that other countries may
be
unwilling to provide protection for inventions developed by New
Zealanders.
- As
discussed previously, the main benefits to society of granting patents are the
incentive to innovate, and the incentive to disclose
new inventions. As most New
Zealand patents are granted to non-residents, most of these benefits will flow
overseas. Further, New
Zealand patents granted to non-residents will also be the
subject of patent applications overseas. As a consequence, details of the
inventions involved will be published by overseas patent offices. New Zealand
will get the benefit of the disclosure of the inventions
even if no patent is
granted (or applied for) in New Zealand.
International Obligations
- New
Zealand is a party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property and the WTO TRIPS2 agreement, which require New Zealand to
have a patent system that provides certain minimum levels of patent protection.
Both the Paris
Convention and the TRIPS agreement require parties to provide the
same level of patent protection to residents of other parties as
they provide
for their own nationals. This means that New Zealand cannot discriminate against
non-residents, for example by making
it easier for New Zealand applicants to be
granted patents than for non-residents. Conversely, other countries cannot
discriminate
against New Zealand applicants.
- New
Zealand has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Australia on Business Law
Co-ordination. This recognises that co-ordination
of business law may help to
minimise impediments to trans-Tasman business activity. The Work Programme for
Co- ordination of Business
Law listed in the Annex to the Memorandum
includes:
Exploring the potential for more closely co-ordinating the
granting and recognition of registered intellectual property rights.
This does not mean that New Zealand and Australia are required to adopt
identical laws. Nevertheless, when considering changes to
the Patents Act 1953,
the possibility of harmonising New Zealand’s law with that of Australia
should be borne in mind.
- The
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), of which New Zealand is a
member, has begun work on drafting a Substantive Patent
Law Treaty. The aim is
to harmonise substantive patent law world-wide (substantive patent law deals
with such things as the threshold
tests for patentability, rather than
administrative requirements for filing applications).
2 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organisation.
- The
justification for harmonising substantive patent law is that this will make it
easier and cheaper for innovators in one country
to obtain patents in other
countries. The negotiations on this draft Treaty are still in their early
stages, and no final text has
been decided. New Zealand would be under no
obligation to ratify any Treaty that might eventually be concluded. There may,
however,
be benefits to New Zealand applicants from harmonising New
Zealand’s substantive patent law with that of New Zealand’s
major
trading partners, whether or not New Zealand ratifies any Substantive Patent Law
Treaty.
2. Reform of the Patents Act 1953
Is Reform Necessary?
- As
discussed in section 1, if the patent system is to benefit New Zealand, it must
ensure that patents are only granted when the benefits
to society of a patent
exceed the costs that it imposes on society. This will occur if patents are only
granted for inventions that
are genuine innovations. The criteria for granting a
patent, as provided in the patents legislation, must be sufficiently strict
to
maximise the likelihood that patents are only granted for real innovations. Are
the criteria for granting a patent contained in
the New Zealand Patents Act 1953
sufficiently strict to ensure that this object is met?
- The
two main criteria for grant of a patent in New Zealand are that the invention
be:
- it be a
“manner of manufacture.”
- Under
the Patents Act 1953, an invention is considered to be new if a description of
the invention has not been published in New Zealand
before the filing date of
the application. No notice is taken of information published outside New Zealand
but not publicly available
within New Zealand. That is, an invention would be
considered “new” even though details of it were well known outside
New Zealand, just as long as these details were not publicly available in New
Zealand.
- The
term “manner of manufacture” has been interpreted by the Courts to
exclude such things as “products of nature”,
mathematical
operations, bare principles, mathematical algorithms, schemes or plans, and
methods of medical treatment of humans.
- There
is no requirement in the Patents Act 1953 that inventions must involve an
inventive step, or be useful, in order to be granted
a patent. Lack of inventive
step and lack of usefulness are however, reasons for revoking a patent after it
has been granted but
will not normally prevent a patent being granted in the
first place. Third parties may oppose the grant of a patent on grounds that
include clear lack of inventive step. The costs and uncertainty involved in
revoking a patent, or opposing its grant, mean that relatively
few patents are
revoked or refused grant on these grounds.
- The
Courts, in decisions relating to the United Kingdom Patents Act 1949, and the
Australian Patents Act 1952 have ruled that the
Commissioner of Patents may only
refuse to grant a patent if it was “practically certain” that if a
patent was granted
it would be held to be invalid. If there is any dispute, the
applicant is to be given the benefit of any doubt.
- These
Acts are very similar to the New Zealand Patents Act 1953, and the New Zealand
Courts have followed decisions relating to them.
As a result, the Commissioner
of Patents may be required to grant patents for inventions that might not meet
all of the requirements
for patentability set out in the Patents Act. The United
Kingdom and Australian patent legislation has since been amended to so that
the
Commissioner of Patents is no longer required to give applicants the benefit of
the doubt.
- It
can be seen then, that the criteria for granting a patent in New Zealand are
such that patents can be granted for things that are
not genuinely new, that do
not involve an
inventive step, and that may not be useful. As a result, it is possible that
some patents are being granted for things that are not
genuine innovations. As
described in Section 1, the grant of such patents will provide no benefits to
New Zealand, and may in fact
cause a loss.
- The
criteria for granting a patent in New Zealand are less strict than those applied
in most other countries, including New Zealand’s
major trading partners.
In these countries a patent can only be granted for an invention if the
invention is new, involves an inventive
step, and is useful. These countries
would refuse to grant a patent on inventions that would be granted a patent in
New Zealand.
This means that it is easier for applicants from other countries to
obtain a New Zealand patent than it is for New Zealand applicants
to obtain a
patent in those other countries. This situation does not provide any benefits
for New Zealand.
- It
is also possible that the requirement in the Patents Act 1953 that an invention
be a “manner of manufacture” may not
be flexible enough to take
account of new technologies. This means that patent protection may be being
denied to some inventions
that are genuine innovations.
- Since
the Patents Act 1953 was passed other issues have arisen that the Act does not
adequately address. The moral and cultural issues
involved in some technologies,
such as genetic engineering or genetic modification, are not dealt with
explicitly.
- Calls
have been made to limit the patenting of life form inventions on ethical
grounds, including animal welfare and the risk of reduced
respect for human and
animal life. Many people, including Māori, have questioned the morality of
granting ownership rights such
as patents over living things. Māori also
consider that it is immoral to interfere with the integrity of plant and animal
species.
There are concerns that the possibility of obtaining a patent on life
form inventions may encourage investment, research and development
in ethically
dubious areas.
- On
the other hand, however, it might be considered to be unethical not to grant
patents for some inventions. Refusing to grant a
patent might mean that morally
positive outcomes such as the development of new drugs or vaccines would be
impeded, as the lack of
patent protection could discourage research. The refusal
to grant a patent for such things could be considered unethical, on the
grounds
that failure to encourage these developments would show disrespect for human
life.
- In
response to concerns expressed about the possible social and environmental
effects of genetic modification, a Royal Commission
on Genetic Modification was
established in May 2000. The Commission’s brief, as stated in its Warrant
was to:
receive representations upon, inquire into, investigate, and
report upon the following matters:
(i) the strategic options available to enable New Zealand to
address, now and in the future, genetic modification, genetically modified
organisms, and products; and
(ii) any changes considered desirable to the current legislative, regulatory,
policy, or institutional arrangements for addressing,
in New Zealand, genetic
modification, genetically modified organisms, and products.
- After
extensive public consultation, the Commission presented its report3
to the Governor General on 27 July 2001. Chapter 10 of the
Commission’s Report deals with intellectual property issues. Two
of these
recommendations are directly relevant to the current review of the Patents Act
1953. These are:
That the Patents Act 1953 be amended by adding a specific
exclusion of the patentability of human beings and the biological processes
for
their generation, in line with s18 of the Patents Act 1990
(Commonwealth).
That a Māori consultative committee be established by
the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand to develop procedures for
assessing applications, and to facilitate consultation with the Māori
community where appropriate.
- These
recommendations will be discussed later in this document. The government’s
response to the recommendations in Chapter
10 of the Commission’s report
can be found at: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/genetic_modification/intellectual_property.htm.
- The
Act also does not address the issue of the protection of the cultural property
and traditional knowledge of Māori. There
is currently a claim before the
Waitangi Tribunal (“Wai 262”) which alleges that the Crown has
breached its obligation
under the Treaty of Waitangi to provide such protection.
The patenting of inventions using indigenous flora and fauna or of inventions
based on traditional knowledge is a concern for Māori and for other
indigenous peoples around the world.
- It
is important to note however, that modifications to the patent system to
restrict the patentability of certain types of inventions
will not prevent the
development and use of such inventions. Conversely, the fact that a patent has
been granted for an invention
does not mean that the invention can be
commercially exploited. The grant of a patent does not over-ride any other
legislation that
might regulate the use of the invention. For example, a new
pharmaceutical cannot be marketed until the Minister of Health has given
approval, even though the pharmaceutical has been
patented.
- It
can be seen then, that the criteria for granting a patent as laid down in the
Patents Act 1953 are not strict enough to ensure
that patents are only granted
for real innovations, and are out of step with the criteria applied
internationally. The Patents Act
1953 also does not address the moral or Treaty
issues that have arisen since the Act was passed. Reform of the Patents Act is
considered
necessary to ensure that New Zealand’s patent
legislation:
3 http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/RCGM/index.html
- ensures that
patents are only granted for things that are genuine
innovations;
- makes a positive
contribution to New Zealand’s economic development and contributes to the
government’s objectives of
developing a “knowledge economy” by
providing adequate incentives for New Zealand businesses to
innovate;
- provide adequate
incentives for overseas innovators to transfer their technology to New
Zealand;
- deals
appropriately with the concerns expressed by Māori regarding the patenting
of inventions involving traditional knowledge
and indigenous plants and
animals;
- takes account of
moral and cultural concerns relating to the patenting of living organisms, and
genetic material, and takes into account
the recommendations of the Royal
Commission on Genetic Modification.
- In
putting forward the innovation strategy, the Prime Minister has stressed the
need to enhance the innovation system. As the Prime
Minister noted, an important
element of this is improving New Zealand’s intellectual property
framework. This review of the
Patents Act 1953 will contribute towards the
government’s goal of growing an innovative New Zealand and help to ensure
that
New Zealand is able to gain full value from its
innovations.
History of Reform
- In
1989 the then Ministry of Commerce commenced a review of the Patents Act, as
part of a general review of New Zealand’s intellectual
property
legislation. The review of the Patents Act culminated in the release of a
discussion paper in 19924 (“the 1992
paper”).
- Submissions
received in response to the 1992 paper indicated general agreement with its
recommendations. Some sections of the community,
however, including a number of
Māori commentators, expressed concerns about the proposed reforms. There
were two main concerns:
- that the
proposed reforms did not address the issue of the patentability of
biotechnological or “life-form” inventions,
and
- that they did
not address the issue of the protection of traditional remedies and the
patenting of inventions based on traditional
knowledge.
As a result, the proposed overhaul of the Patents Act was postponed while
further consultations with Māori and other stakeholders
took place. As part
of the consultation process, the Ministry convened a Māori focus group to
consider and report on the issues
relating to the patenting of life forms, and a
series of hui was held in 1999 which discussed
4 Reform of the Patents Act 1953, Proposed
Recommendations, copies available from the Ministry of Economic
Development.
the focus group’s report and an accompanying Ministry publication,
“Patenting of Biotechnological Inventions”5.
- Since
the release of the 1992 paper the only changes to the Patents Act 1953 were made
in 1992 and 1994, to take account of New Zealand’s
accession to the
Patents Co- operation Treaty, and the TRIPS agreement,
respectively.
- In
August 2000, the Government decided to re-start the reform process, and agreed
to a three-stage review of the Act. In Stages 1
and 2, Cabinet has agreed to a
number of operational amendments to the Act which were based largely on the
recommendations in the
1992 paper. The focus of these amendments is to update
and improve the Act with the aim of providing greater certainty that when
a
patent is granted there will be a net social benefit to New
Zealand.
- To
achieve this, the amendments proposed in Stage 1 and 2 included a change to the
novelty requirements, so that an invention would
be only considered
“new” if no description of the invention has been published
anywhere in the world before the date of filing of a patent application.
Also included is a proposal to require that an invention must be shown to
involve
an inventive step before a patent can be granted. A new Patents
Bill incorporating the changes proposed in Stage 1 and 2 is currently being
drafted.
- These
proposals did not seek to address the moral, cultural and Treaty issues
identified earlier. The question of the definition of
invention was not
addressed either. These issues have been the subject of considerable public
debate, both in New Zealand and overseas.
The Government has therefore decided
to seek public input before making any final decision on these
matters.
- This
discussion paper is being released as part of Stage Three of the review. In
addition to the issues identified above, this discussion
paper will also deal
with the following issues:
- the
patentability of business methods and computer software related
inventions;
- the
patentability of methods of medical treatment of humans;
- the stringency
of the tests used to determine whether a patent should be
granted.
5 Copies of this publication and the report of the
Māori Focus group can be obtained from the Ministry of Economic
Development.
It is also available on the Ministry’s website www.med.govt.nz
3. Definition of Invention
What Is Meant by “Definition of Invention”?
- The
patent laws of some countries, including New Zealand, incorporate a definition
of what constitutes an invention. Anything that
does not fall within the
definition is not considered to be an invention and will not be granted a
patent, even though it otherwise
meets all the other criteria for grant of a
patent.
- The
reasons for having a definition of invention, at least in those countries that
based their legislation on that of the United Kingdom,
date back to the Statute
of Monopolies. This statute was enacted in 1623 for the purposes of declaring
all monopolies void. An exception,
though, was made for “patents for
invention” with the intention of encouraging national economic
development. By providing
a definition of invention, the monopoly rights
conferred by the grant of a patent could be given only to those things that were
seen
to give real economic benefits to society. Things that were not considered
to provide such benefits would not be considered inventions
and would not be
granted a patent.
- The
definition of invention is subject to interpretation by courts and patent
offices. In general though, the sorts of things that
have not been considered to
be inventions include mere discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical
algorithms, and purely aesthetic
creations.
- It
is not absolutely necessary to have a definition of invention. Some countries do
not include a definition of invention as such
in their patent legislation.
Instead, the legislation provides a list of those things which are not
considered to be inventions,
and not eligible for the grant of a
patent.
- Many
countries also exclude certain types of invention from patent protection, even
though they otherwise meet all the criteria for
the grant of a patent. The
inventions that are excluded from patent protection are usually those where
there may be moral or cultural
objections to granting patent
protection.
- Most
countries are parties to the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Any exclusions from patent
protection must be consistent with this agreement.
Article 27 of the TRIPS
agreement deals with patentable subject matter and permits some specific
exclusions to patentability. The
Patents Act 1953 is consistent with Article 27.
Any changes to New Zealand’s patent laws must be also be consistent with
this
Article.
- Article
27 states:
- Subject
to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any
inventions, whether products or processes, in
all fields of technology, provided
that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial
application.6 Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of
Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and
patent
rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the
field of technology and whether products are imported or
locally
produced.
- Members
may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory
of the commercial exploitation of which is
necessary to protect ordre public
or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or
to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided
that such exclusion is
not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their
law.
- Members
may also exclude from patentability:
(a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the
treatment of humans or animals;
(b) plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and
essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other
than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall
provide for the protection of plant varieties either by
patents or by an
effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The
provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of
entry into
force of the WTO Agreement.”
The Definition of Invention in New Zealand
- Section
2(1) The Patents Act 1953 defines an invention as:
any manner of new manufacture the subject of letters patent and
grant of privilege within section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies7 and
any method or process of testing applicable to the improvement or control of
manufacture; and includes an alleged invention
- This
definition of invention is essentially the same as that used in United Kingdom
patent laws until the passage of the United Kingdom
Patents Act 1977.
Consequently there is an extensive body of case law from the United Kingdom
courts concerning the interpretation
of this definition. This case law has
generally been followed in New Zealand. Where the courts have decided that
something does not
fall within the definition of invention, this is effectively
an exclusion from patentability. These “judicial” exclusions
(as
6 A footnote to Article 27 states “For the
purposes of this Article, the terms 'inventive step' and 'capable of industrial
application'
may be deemed by a Member to be synonymous with the terms
'non-obvious' and 'useful' respectively.”
7 The Act of the 21st year of the reign of King James
the First, Chapter 3, intituled “An Act concerning monopolies and
dispensations
with penal laws and the forfeiture thereof” – s2
Patents Act 1953.
opposed to “statutory” exclusions) include “products of
nature”, mathematical algorithms, bare principles,
mathematical
algorithms, mere schemes or plans, and methods of medical treatment of
humans.
- Section
17 of the Patents Act also allows the Commissioner of Patents to refuse to grant
a patent for an invention on the grounds
that the use of the invention is
“contrary to morality”. This provision has rarely, if ever, been
applied.
- New
technologies have tested the limits of the current definition, and raised
questions about the ability of the current definition
to deal with inventions in
areas such as biotechnology, medical treatments, computer software and business
methods. Another issue
is whether the Act should specifically state that some
inventions should be excluded from patent protection.
- It
was recommended in the 1992 paper that the current definition of invention be
repealed, and that the decision on whether to grant
a patent should be made on
the basis of what are now the three internationally recognised criteria of
novelty, inventive step, and
industrial applicability or usefulness. The paper
stated that this would have the following advantages:
- A clear break
from the present approach which would limit the restrictions imposed by previous
practice;
- Greater
certainty and potentially lower costs;
- Consistency with
other jurisdictions.
- The
1992 paper also recommended that there should be no specific exclusions from
patentability, on the basis that existing exclusions
could be dealt with by
other means in the Patents Act or in the general law. The paper noted that
exclusions reflect historical precedent
and differing national perspectives on
the impact of the patent system on economic development. On the basis of
overseas experience,
however, and following some strong objections to that
recommendation, the government considers that this issue should be
revisited.
- Possible
options for change to the definition of a patentable invention are described
below. While mention is made of possible exclusions
to patentability, it is not
intended, in discussing the options for change, to determine what these
exclusions (if any) might be.
The question of whether there should be exclusions
to patentability is explored later on in this document.
Option 1: No Change
- Under
this option the definition of a patentable invention as currently provided in s2
of the Act would remain. This would retain
the present “judicial
exclusions”, while leaving the Courts free to interpret the definition of
invention on a case by
case basis, as has occurred in the past. The Commissioner
of Patents would still have the power to refuse patents where the use of
the
invention would be “contrary to morality”.
- A
possible disadvantage of retaining the present definition of invention is that
it may lead to uncertainty as to the eligibility
of some new technologies for
patent protection. On the other hand, it has been argued8 that the
current definition has demonstrated sufficient flexibility to meet the
challenges of technological change, while adequately
protecting society’s
interests.
- Retaining
the current definition of invention would not address such issues as whether or
not life forms, or inventions related to
genetic modification or engineering,
should be the subject of patent protection. Neither would it address the
question of the granting
of patents to inventions that make use of Māori
traditional knowledge and cultural intellectual property.
- The
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has recommended (Recommendation 10.2)
that the Patents Act 1953 include a specific exclusion
of the patentability of
human beings and biological processes for their generation. As the government
has accepted this recommendation,
this option (no change to the definition of
invention) is not viable.
Option 2: Retain Current Definition, with Specific
Exclusions
- This
approach would involve keeping the current definition of invention, while
incorporating into the Act a list of things which,
although they might satisfy
the definition of “invention”, were not considered suitable subject
matter for a patent.
Such exclusions would have to be consistent with Article
27.3 of the TRIPS agreement (see above). This may go some way towards meeting
the concerns of those who feel that some things should not be granted a patent
on moral or cultural grounds.
- There
may be others, however, who would oppose the addition of specific exclusions on
the grounds that they would find such exclusions
morally or culturally
unacceptable. They may consider that such exclusions would discourage research
in areas that would benefit
society, such as the development of new medical
therapies or labour-saving technologies.
- The
use of specific exclusions, however, may not be sufficient to deal with patents
for inventions using Māori traditional knowledge
and cultural
property.
- An
advantage of this option is that it would retain the present judicial
exclusions, while allowing the Courts the freedom to re-interpret
the definition
of invention as they consider necessary. It would also leave the Courts free to
revisit the existing judicial exclusions.
One risk with this approach is that it
is possible that the Courts may consider that if one of the existing judicial
exclusions was
not specifically included as an exclusion in any new legislation
this might indicate that Parliament did not wish to retain the
exclusion.
- This
was the approach taken by the Australian Federal Court in Anaesthetic
Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd.9 In that case, methods of medical
treatment of humans, previously
8 See p148, Review of Intellectual Property
Legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement: Final Report by the
Intellectual Property
and Competition Review Committee, Australia, September
2000.
9 [1994] FCA 1065; (1994) 122 ALR 141.
unpatentable, were found to be proper subject matter for a patent. One of the
grounds for this finding was that if Parliament had
intended to continue to
exclude such methods from patentability, it would have enacted a specific
exclusion into the Australian Patents Act 1990. As no such exclusion was
enacted, the Court concluded that Parliament did not wish the exclusion to
continue.
- If
it is considered desirable that the present “judicial” exclusions
remain, it may be necessary to provide for specific
exclusions relating to
them.
- If
New Zealand were to exclude certain technologies, for example gene technologies,
from patent protection using Article 27.2 of TRIPS,
this would not prevent the
use of such technologies, nor would it prevent such technologies from being
patented in other countries.
It is also possible that other parties to the TRIPS
agreement might challenge New Zealand’s use of Article 27.2 in this way.
The exclusion of some technologies from patent protection might act as a
disincentive to research in those technologies in New Zealand,
and result in a
loss of New Zealand researchers to countries with a more liberal patent
regime.
Option 3: No Definition of Invention
- Under
this option, the Act would contain no definition of invention. Anything that met
the criteria of novelty, inventiveness and
usefulness as specified in the TRIPS
agreement would be granted a patent. Certain things that otherwise might meet
these criteria
could be specifically excluded from patent protection. The main
advantage of this approach would be that patentability would not
be restricted
by previous practice. Other advantages and disadvantages are as for Option
2.
- This
approach is used in the European Patent Convention, and therefore also used in
the United Kingdom Patents Act 1977.10
Option 4: Keep Current Definition, with Additional Criteria,
with or without Specific Exclusions
- The
definition of invention would retain the requirement that an invention be
“a manner of manufacture”, with the definition
of invention
additionally including the specific criteria of novelty, inventiveness, and
industrial applicability. Specific exclusions
could be introduced. This is
essentially the same approach as used in the Australian Patents Act 1990. The
only specific exclusion from patentability in the Australian Act is for human
beings, and biological processes for their generation.
The advantages and
disadvantages of this approach are the same as for option 2, with the additional
advantage of harmonising New
Zealand patent law more closely with that of
Australia.
10 See s1(2) and (3), also s4(2).
Option 5: Repeal Current Definition, Replace It with an
Alternative Definition, with or without Specific Exclusions
- Given
the doubts that have been expressed about the current definition of invention,
some alternative definition could be provided
that could be more easily adapted
to new technologies. Any new definition though, would still be subject to
interpretation by the
Courts, and there is no guarantee that any new definition
would produce fewer problems than the present one. Any new definition could,
of
course, be accompanied by specific exclusions.
Questions
- Which
of the options identified above should be adopted. Why?
- Should
there be any specific exclusions from patentability? If not, why
not?
- If
there were to be specific exclusions, what should they be?
Why?
- Should
the power currently given to the Commissioner of Patents to refuse to grant
patents for inventions whose use would be “contrary
to morality” be
retained? If not, why not?
4. Māori and the Patenting of Biotechnological
Inventions
Background
- As
discussed in section 2, in 1989 the then Ministry of Commerce began a review of
the Patents Act 1953 as part of a general review
of New Zealand's intellectual
property legislation. Submissions received in response to a 1992 discussion
document indicated concern
within the Māori community that the proposed
reforms did not address the following issues: the patentability of
biotechnological
or "life-form" inventions, and the protection of traditional
remedies and other inventions based on traditional knowledge. As a result
the
review of the Patents Act was postponed to allow further consultation with
Māori to occur.
- Submissions
to the then Ministry of Commerce from Māori in 1994 and 1999 indicated that
Māori are in general opposed to
any reform of the Patents Act that might
either “extend” patentability in the area of biotechnology, or that
might not
prevent the granting of patent rights to inventions based upon living
organisms.
- Many
Māori are concerned about the application of patent rights to life forms,
including indigenous flora and fauna. These concerns
are wide ranging. First,
there is concern that a patent for an invention derived from indigenous flora
and fauna may, through the
grant of exclusive rights in relation to the
invention, infringe what Māori consider to be their rights under the Treaty
of
Waitangi to maintain control over their resources, and may also limit the
rights of Māori themselves to develop new uses of
those resources. Second,
there is concern about the cultural and spiritual implications of the alteration
of life forms, and the
encouragement given through the patents system to
continue innovation in this field.
- Māori
have also raised concerns about the application of the patents system to
inventions based on traditional knowledge. There
is a concern that traditional
remedies, or their active ingredients, may be patented by individuals from
outside the iwi from which
the knowledge is obtained, and that Iwi would then be
denied access to their traditional remedies during the patent term without
either informed consent or arrangements for benefit sharing. Conversely, the
requirement for inventions to be “novel”
and to involve an
“inventive step” may prevent Māori themselves from obtaining
patent protection for traditional
knowledge (which is typically passed on from
generation to generation and evolves incrementally).
- Another
concern is that, while the Patents Act permits some collective ownership of
patent rights, the system does not as a whole
sit well with the concept of
collective ownership of knowledge. It is also argued that the patents system
allows and promotes the
commercial exploitation of knowledge, whereas the
objective for Māori is more often the protection of traditional knowledge
against inappropriate use and possible loss. In many instances the commercial
exploitation of traditional knowledge is culturally
offensive.
- In
addition, many Māori share the same concerns as other New Zealanders about
the possible social and environmental effects of
genetic modification, and
oppose the patenting of genetically modified products and processes on these
grounds. Others, however,
welcome genetic modification as a means of ensuring
reliable supplies of valuable medical supplies such as insulin. In any event,
it
is important to note that patents,
while they may provide an incentive to further research and development in this
field, will not operate to prevent research and development
in that area. The
Patents Act essentially deals with the granting of rights over the “end
product” of what is often a
long process of research and development.
Consultations to Date
- Four
consultation hui were held in 1994 to discuss Māori concerns raised about
proposed changes to intellectual property legislation.
In 1995, in response to
Māori concerns, the then Ministry of Commerce established the Patenting of
Life Forms Focus Group ("the
Focus Group"). Its purpose was to identify for the
Ministry some issues of probable concern to Māori in relation to the
patenting
of life forms. The Focus Group engaged in wide consultations in
developing its report.
- The
Focus Group’s report and the Ministry’s discussion paper on the
Patenting of Biotechnological Inventions [link] were
released for public
discussion in February 1999. Consultation hui and workshops on these papers took
place between April and June
1999. Submissions were also received on both papers
from New Zealand scientific and research organisations and the patent attorney
profession.
- Responses
to the Focus Group's report and the Ministry's discussion paper included a wide
range of views. Some respondents were against
any exclusions to patentability,
or any amendments to the Patents Act to accommodate specific Māori
concerns. Others argued
strongly that Māori should be consulted when
decisions are being made on the patenting of life form inventions, and that the
Act should be amended to ensure that Māori have standing to raise issues of
concern to them in patent opposition or revocation
proceedings.
Issues to Be Considered
- This
document does not seek to re-examine the issues raised comprehensively in the
report of the Focus Group and the Ministry’s
discussion paper. Rather, its
purpose is to assist in exploring the extent to which Māori concerns about
the patents system
might be accommodated within the existing regime while still
permitting the system to function effectively in promoting innovation,
competition and New Zealand’s overall economic interests. There is a
broader set of concerns relating to the protection of
traditional knowledge and
cultural heritage which conventional intellectual property mechanisms, such as
the Patents Act, do not
address because of the underlying objectives and values
on which they are based. These concerns could be addressed by the development
of
a stand-alone system to protect traditional knowledge (this issue is discussed
further below in paragraphs 107 - 112).
- The
Focus Group also noted that many of the concerns raised by Māori, although
seen as very much related to the discussion of
Patents Act reforms, were more
appropriately dealt with in some other forum. These concerns
included:
- the use of the
research material involved, including indigenous flora and
fauna;
- controlling
access to such resources; and
- the exercise of
rangatiratanga over indigenous life forms.
- As
mentioned in section 2, there is a currently a claim before the Waitangi
Tribunal (“WAI 262”) which alleges that the
Crown has breached its
obligation to protect the cultural and intellectual property of Māori. This
claim arises from Article
II of the Treaty.
- Article
II of the Treaty of Waitangi preserves the rights of Māori to exercise te
tino rangatiratanga (“their full chiefly
authority”) over their
taonga (literally “treasures”- rendered in the English version of
the Treaty as natural
resources including lands, forests, fisheries and other
properties).
- The
Wai 262 claim may be seen, at least in part, as a response to the tension
between what are understood by Māori to be Article
II rights and
obligations, and the proprietary rights granted under intellectual property
rights legislation, including the Patents
Act 1953. The claim asserts that the
Treaty guarantees rights of ownership, control, and authority over the genetic
resources of
indigenous flora and fauna, and cultural and intellectual heritage
and traditional knowledge. The concept of “ownership”
would cast
Māori in the role of guardians of their heritage, while
“control” suggests the possibility of commercial
exploitation. The
claim also asserts that the Crown is in breach of Article II of the Treaty
through the enactment of legislation,
including the Patents Act, which is
inconsistent with those rights.
- The
Wai 262 inquiry is some way from completion. Meanwhile the government is
proceeding with legislative reform that may go some way
towards addressing the
issues raised by the claim. For example, the new Trade Marks Bill introduced in
June 2001, will, once enacted,
require the Commissioner of Trade Marks to refuse
to register a trade mark where the Commissioner considers that its use or
registration
would be likely to offend a significant section of the community,
including Māori. The Bill goes some way towards addressing
some of the
concerns raised in the Wai 262 claim by ensuring that the Crown is not
inappropriately registering trade marks containing
Māori text and
imagery.
Māori Concerns and the Review of the Patents Act
- In
considering potential changes to the Patents Act it is necessary to take account
of the implications for Māori in granting
intellectual property rights to
inventions which may be perceived to conflict with Māori rights and
interests in traditional
knowledge, native plants and animals. The Crown also
has an obligation to consult with Māori on matters affecting their
interests
under the Treaty.
- Traditional
knowledge, and Māori interests in indigenous flora and fauna, could be
given some protection through amendments to
the Patents Act while continuing to
comply with New Zealand’s international obligations.
- These
might include, for example, providing for consultation with Māori when
making decisions on patents based on traditional
knowledge or indigenous genetic
material (see below paragraphs 98 - 106). The Act might also be amended to
provide that Māori
will have standing to seek revocation or re-examination
of a patent.
- Some
Māori also assert a special interest in the genetic integrity of
non-indigenous flora and fauna (in the context of genetic
modification) on the
basis of their spiritual connection to all living things. Māori concerns in
this regard could be examined
along with other similar claims based on religious
or cultural grounds. These might not be the subject of specific consultation
with
Māori, but could be considered in the context of any public morality
type exceptions to patentability.
- Māori
may be concerned that a patent, through its grant of an exclusive right to use
and commercially exploit an invention, may
both prevent Māori from
continuing to use their own traditional knowledge, and may not result in any
appropriate compensation
for the knowledge contributed. It is important to note
however, that a patent gives rights only in respect of the specific invention
being claimed and nothing more. A patent on an invention derived from
traditional knowledge does not prevent the continued use of
that knowledge by
the relevant community (but it may affect the future patentability of
traditional knowledge based inventions by
the owners of that knowledge). It
should also be noted that before a patent can be granted for a traditional
knowledge based invention,
the examining office, in this instance IPONZ, must be
confident that the invention is new, that is, that details of the invention
have
not been previously published.
- In
Stage 2 of the review of the Patents Act, a change is proposed that which would
require that an invention involve an inventive
step (not be obvious) before a
patent can be granted. This would also reduce the likelihood of a patent being
granted for an invention
based on traditional knowledge. Whether an invention
involves an inventive step is determined having regard to the information
already
known and used in the relevant field - the invention must not simply be
a natural consequence of something already known.
- Where
traditional knowledge has contributed to the development of a new invention,
ideally questions of benefit sharing would be managed
by the parties concerned
and would not be a matter for legislation. In the absence of legislative
requirements, it is possible that
this may not occur equitably or at all. The
issue of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing for indigenous peoples
is currently
being considered at the international level by organisations such
as the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the Convention
on Biological
Diversity. New Zealand has signalled its intention to participate actively in
these discussions.
- Providing
for Māori input into the patent process could assist in addressing
inequalities that may result from the situations
described
above.
Māori Input into the Patent Process
- The
Patents Act could be amended to ensure that consultation with Māori
occurred when applications are made for patents for inventions
based on
traditional knowledge or indigenous genetic material. Such consultation could
take place on examination of the patent application,
or in the course of
revocation or re-examination proceedings.
- Proposals
to require consultation have been criticised by stakeholders for imposing
uncertainty on the patent process. Patents, however,
should not be granted
without rigorous examination and will always be subject to challenge at any time
during the patent term. In
this respect, the system could already be said to be
“uncertain” and the introduction of possible mechanisms to, in
effect,
reduce future uncertainty, can only contribute to its over-all
soundness.
- The
nature of any consultation process would need to be carefully determined to
ensure both its effectiveness and over-all fairness
to all interested parties.
It would be advisable to impose some time limits on any proposed consultation
process to ensure it did
not result in undue delays for users of the system. One
proposal that has been put forward by Māori groups is that patent
applicants
be required to provide clear evidence of the source of any genetic
material concerned or, in the case of inventions which may be
based on
traditional knowledge, of “prior informed consent” of the owners
that knowledge.
- Even
if patent applicants were required to provide evidence of the source of genetic
material and obtain "prior informed consent",
it will still be important to
ensure that patent examiners are able to recognise patents based on traditional
knowledge or indigenous
genetic resources, independently of information provided
by the applicant. The ability to recognise traditional knowledge is important
to
enable patent examiners to determine whether an invention is new and is eligible
to be patented.
- It
is difficult to identify how and what consultation should take place at the
examination stage, when examiners become aware that
a patent is based on
traditional knowledge or indigenous genetic resources. One option could be the
formation of a committee to represent
Māori interests in this context, and
to advise the Commissioner of Patents as to the nature of the interest and the
particular
communities or persons with whom the Commissioner should consult.
Alternatively, the patent applicant could be directed to undertake
consultation.
It may be difficult, however, for applicants to arrange adequate consultation
before filing a patent application, particularly
if the applicant is from
outside New Zealand.
- The
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has recommended (recommendation 10.4)
that a Māori Consultative Committee be established
to develop procedures
for assessing applications, and to facilitate consultation with the Māori
community where appropriate.
In its response to the Royal Commission’s
recommendations, the government agreed that:
a Māori consultative committee be established, but that its
scope and role be confirmed following public consultation as part
of Stage 3 of
the review of the Patents Act 1953.
- The
functions of this committee in relation to “assessing applications”
would be limited by New Zealand's international
obligations in respect of
Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement, which deals with patentable subject matter
and permits limited specific
exclusions to patentability. The exclusions are set
out in section 3 of this discussion document, and include exclusions necessary
to protect ordre public or morality, to protect human, animal or plant
life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment. Article 27 does
not
expressly allow parties to refuse the grant of a patent on cultural grounds,
although such a refusal may fit within the ordre public and morality
exception.
- The
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification also recommended (recommendation 10.5)
that New Zealand pursue an amendment of the TRIPS
agreement which would allow
the avoidance of cultural offence as a specific ground of exclusion. In its
response to the Royal Commission’s
recommendation, the Government has
directed officials from the Ministry of Economic Development, Te Puni
Kōkiri and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and Trade
to:
- support the
concept of exclusion or reservation on the basis of cultural offence through
work currently being progressed through the
World Intellectual Property
Organisation, and the development of a new system for the protection of
Māori “cultural and
intellectual
property”
- be alert for
opportunities which may arise in the World Trade Organisation TRIPS
context.
- Another
possibility might be to include provision in the legislation for Māori to
participate in the application process as interested
parties. For example
applications for
re-examination (both pre and post grant) or revocation of particular patents
could be made by Māori groups or individuals where
they considered their
interests had in some way been contravened.
Sui Generis Mechanisms of Protection of Traditional
Knowledge
- An
alternative to adapting existing intellectual property legislation to protect
traditional knowledge is to develop a “sui generis” (stand
alone) system. The development of a sui generis system will address the
broader concerns raised about the protection of traditional knowledge which
cannot be adequately achieved
by adapting existing intellectual property
mechanisms.
- The
importance of developing mechanisms to protect traditional knowledge has been
recognised internationally. Work is being undertaken
in a number of
international fora including the World Intellectual Property Organisation, which
has recently established an Intergovernmental
Committee on Intellectual Property
and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. New Zealand has
signalled its support
for work by the Committee on sui generis systems to
protect elements of traditional knowledge not covered by existing intellectual
property systems. This is consistent with
recommendation
10.4 of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, that:
New Zealand be proactive in pursuing cultural and intellectual
rights for indigenous peoples internationally.
The government has agreed with this recommendation, and has directed officials
ot implement it. New Zealand has also stated that
this approach should not
preclude the development of country or region-specific alternative approaches to
protecting the knowledge
and practices of indigenous communities.
- Sui
generis protection for traditional knowledge could be developed in
conjunction with mechanisms governing access to genetic resources and
benefit-sharing,
as well as other measures such as registries of traditional
knowledge, which would be used by patent examiners when considering patent
applications. Such protection might include registers recording traditional
knowledge and prior informed consent.
- The
development of registers of traditional knowledge is a contentious issue. Such
registers would to some extent prevent the commercial
exploitation of
traditional knowledge by preventing third parties from obtaining patents for
traditional knowledge based inventions
where it could be shown that the
invention was not new or obvious. There is, however, considerable concern among
indigenous peoples
about the public disclosure of traditional knowledge in this
way.
- Some
countries, including the members of the Andean11 community and the
Philippines, have already introduced sui generis systems at the national
level. International agreement on a sui generis system is, however,
likely to take some time, as
11 Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela.
is the development of any sui generis system within New Zealand.
Meanwhile it is appropriate to explore ways in which the existing regimes for
intellectual property rights,
including patents, can be adapted to address some
Māori concerns while still meeting its overall objective to promote
innovation
and competition.
- The
New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, released in February 2000, acknowledged the
need to encourage Māori participation in managing
biodiversity and in
developing a framework for the retention and promotion of Matauranga
Māori.12 It also recognised the need to take Māori
interests into account in developing access to and use of New Zealand’s
indigenous
genetic resources and the sharing of benefits of their use.
Implementation of the Strategy (which is the responsibility of several
government departments, including the Department of Conservation and the
Ministry of the Environment) will complement any amendments
to the Patents Act
to take account of Māori interests in these areas.
Questions for Consideration in Relation to the Review of the
Patents Act 1953
- Should
applicants for patents be required to provide evidence of the source of any
genetic material? If so, what sort of evidence
would be
required?
- Where
inventions are based on traditional knowledge, should applicants be required to
provide evidence of the prior informed consent
of the holders of that knowledge.
If so, what form should that evidence take? What process would be
required?
- How
might patent examiners be made aware that patent applications are based on
Māori traditional knowledge or indigenous flora
and
fauna?
- Should
there be specific consultation with Māori during the patent examination
process?
- If
so, what sorts of applications should Māori be consulted about?
Applications based on Māori traditional knowledge and
indigenous flora and
fauna? Anything else? Why?
- What
should the role of the Māori consultative committee be? How would it be
constituted? Should applicants be required to consult
with Māori, or should
the onus be on the Crown, or a combination of both?
- How
else might Māori interests be taken into account in the patent
process?
12 Matauranga Māori: Māori traditional
knowledge, which includes knowledge about traditional medicines, fishing,
weaving, and
other aspects of everyday life.
Other Questions You May Wish to Consider (Although They Are Outside the
Scope of the Patents Review)
- Is
a sui generis (stand alone) system for the protection of traditional
knowledge and cultural heritage needed? Is international protection of
traditional
knowledge necessary? Why?
- If
so, what should a sui generis system protect, and
how?
- Should
a sui generis system be limited to the protection of traditional
knowledge, or should it also provide for the commercial exploitation of the
knowledge
by the holders of that knowledge?
- Should
registers of traditional knowledge, to assist patent examiners in the search of
prior art, be developed? What are the advantages
and disadvantages? What sort of
information might be contained on registers? Who would be responsible for the
compilation and maintenance
of such registers?
5. New Issues in Patentability 1: Biotechnological
Patents
What is Biotechnology?
- Biotechnology
is essentially about the study or manipulation of one or more of the basic
components of living things, including tissues,
cells, proteins, genes or DNA,
to create new products or technologies. Biotechnology is employed in the
development of many everyday
products, from the processing of foods, to the
development of vaccines and other medical treatments. Early uses of
biotechnology
include traditional breeding techniques used to improve plants,
livestock and other food products.
- Genetic
engineering or genetic modification is an aspect of biotechnology that involves
the manipulation or movement of DNA material,
including between
species.
Why Is it an Issue?
- Biotechnology,
(including genetic modification) has a well-established presence in New Zealand.
Potential applications of biotechnology
are wide with new applications
constantly being developed. New Zealand has an excellent reputation for high
quality research and
research facilities and is a world leader in agricultural
and horticultural research, a great deal of which involves some form of
biotechnological activity. Biotechnological inventions have also had a major
impact on a number of other New Zealand industries,
including medical research,
agriculture, animal production, dairy, food and beverages and waste
processing.
- Because
of the importance of the primary production sector in our economy, and in our
external trade (with around half our exports
comprising food products and two
thirds derived from agriculture, forestry and fisheries), the implications of
biotechnology for
primary sector production are particularly important for New
Zealand. Parts of our primary sector, including organic producers, oppose
the
use of a number of biotechnological applications, and particularly those which
involve genetic modification.
- Medical
uses of biotechnology are also becoming increasingly important, both in terms of
a growing range of diagnostic tests and new
pharmaceuticals now available to New
Zealanders, and also in the area of medical research where an ever-increasing
number of professionals
are using biotechnology applications to study and
prevent diseases.
- It
has been suggested that research (and subsequent product development) in the
field of genetic modification and other biotechnological
applications has the
potential to be a valuable source of intellectual property for New Zealand, and
one which can be sold on world
markets. In recent years increasing numbers of
patent applications have been filed around the world (including New Zealand) for
inventions
involving biotechnology.
- There
has, however, been some opposition to the commercial exploitation of inventions
involving biotechnology, particularly those
involving genetic modification.
Although in many instances it is the activity involved or the possible end
result of that activity
which generates concern, concerns have also been
expressed that the availability of patent protection for such inventions
encourages
their creation.
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
- Public
concern about the possible adverse effects on society of genetic modification
lead to the establishment of the Royal Commission
on Genetic Modification. The
Commission presented its report on 27 July 2001. The report made two
recommendations regarding the patenting
of biotechnological inventions. These
recommendations are discussed later in this section.
- Questions
have also been raised as to the appropriateness of allowing proprietary rights
to inventions which include living matter,
and in particular to inventions which
relate to, or include what are often called "higher life forms" such as animals
or human beings.
- Many
countries have laws that regulate the exploitation of certain inventions for
moral, ethical or environmental reasons. As noted
previously, arguments against
patenting of biotechnological and genetically modified inventions, particularly
those involving "higher
life forms" appear to focus on the activity involved.
For example, there is concern that genetic modification may interfere with
the
integrity of species and as such is inherently wrong. Questions have been raised
over the morality of assigning economic value
to biological material and the
implications this has in terms of distribution and concentration of
wealth.
- A
1994 paper prepared by the Westminster Institute for Ethics and Human Values at
the McGill Centre for Medicine and Law (Canada): Ethical Issues Associated
with the Patenting of Higher Life Forms noted that if genetic engineering
and its applications are regarded as ethically concerning to begin with,
patenting becomes ethically
suspect in direct proportion to the strength of the
incentive it provides for such research and development.
- While
there are many people, including Māori who see genetic modification as
being in some way immoral, there is another point
of view. This alternative view
sees interventions such as genetic modification as a proper extension of
society’s enquiries
into nature. Failure to pursue such research can be
seen as a dereliction of duty in caring for other human beings, as the research
may provide major health benefits. On this basis it would be considered immoral
to take any action which discouraged research in
these
areas.
Biotechnology Patents in New Zealand
- The
definition of a patentable invention contained in s2 of the Patents Act 1953
does not specifically exclude biotechnological inventions,
although IPONZ does
have a practice of refusing patents that would include human beings within their
scope. Non-human animals, however,
may be patented, and such patents have been
granted by IPONZ. For example, New Zealand patent 24390813 claims a
transgenic mouse.
13“Gene encoding mutant l3t4 protein which
facilitates HIV infection and transgenic mouse expressing such
protein.”
Treatment of Biotechnological Inventions in Other
Countries
- Attitudes
to the patenting of biotechnological or "life form" inventions in different
jurisdictions tend to reflect the extent to
which biotechnological activity
impacts on the economy in question. Developing countries have tended to focus on
issues such as the
availability of products including food and medicines at
prices which make them accessible to consumers. These countries may be reluctant
to implement patent systems that conflict with these
objectives.
European Union
- The
European Patent Convention (EPC)14 reflects the TRIPS Agreement in
excluding from patentability inventions which are contrary to public order or
morality. Article
53 of the EPC states that: “European patents shall not
be granted in respect of inventions the publication or exploitation
of which
would be contrary to ‘ordre public’ or morality.....[and
shall not be granted] in respect of plant or animal varieties or essentially
biological processes for
the production of plants or
animals.....”
- The
European Union Directive 98/44/EC sets out rules for patent offices in EPC
member states regarding biotechnological inventions.
Member states are required
to convert such directives into domestic law. It allows inventions to be
excluded from patentability if
they are considered to be against “ordre
public” or morality and provides examples of the types of inventions
that would fit this criteria including:
- processes for
cloning human beings;
- processes for
modifying the germ line identity of human beings;
- uses of human
embryos for industrial or commercial purposes; and
- processes for
modifying the genetic identity of animals which are likely to cause them
suffering without any substantial medical benefit
to man or animal, and also
animals resulting from such processes.
- The
treatment of the patent application for the Harvard “Oncomouse” in
199515 can be seen to reflect this approach. A patent was granted on
the Oncomouse on the basis that the benefits (the study of cancer)
were
considered to outweigh the disadvantages (cruelty to animals). Accordingly, the
European Patent Office refused a similar type
of patent on a mouse developed to
study hair growth as the subject matter was not considered important enough to
outweigh animal
suffering.
14 The members of the European Patent Convention are:
Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France,
Turkey, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, The
Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.
15 A mouse genetically engineered to be susceptible
to cancer, European Patent No 169672.
- The
Directive states that gene sequences without an indication of a function do not
contain any technical information, and are not
patentable inventions as they are
not capable of “industrial application” as required by Article 52(1)
of the European
Patent Convention. Biological material which is isolated from
its natural environment however, or produced by means of a technical
process and
which is capable of industrial application, may be the subject of a patentable
invention even if it previously occurred
in nature.
United States
- United
States Patent law has no specific exclusions to patentability. In 1980, the
United States Supreme Court ruled that a live,
human-made micro-organism is
patentable subject matter.16 This lead to the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) conferring patentable status on plants, seeds, and
plant tissues
in 1985, and two years later on "multi-cellular living organisms,
including animals”. The Harvard “Oncomouse” (referred
to
above) was granted a patent (No 4736866) under this policy. However, the United
States Patent Office will reject an application
if the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed invention as a whole encompasses a human being.
Such an invention would
be considered contrary to the 13th Amendment to the
United States Constitution, which forbids slavery.
- In
January 2001, the USPTO introduced revised “utility examination
guidelines” to be used by patent examiners is assessing
whether an
invention is “useful” as required by the s101 of the United States
Patents Act (Title 101 US Code). These
guidelines, although applicable to all
patent applications, were introduced in response to concerns that gene sequences
or DNA fragments
were being patented even though their inventors had not
described any particular use for them. The guidelines require that the utility
of an invention be:
- Specific - that
is specific to the subject matter claimed;
- Substantial -
that is that a real world use is defined rather than one which requires further
research to identify it; and
- Credible –
is the utility believable to a person skilled in the
field?
The effect of these guidelines would be to prevent the patenting of mere
discoveries for which a specific, substantial, and credible
use has not been
described.
South America
- Latin
American countries have some of the greatest biological and cultural diversity
in the world and, (it is argued), this characteristic
makes an ideal location
for bioprospecting activity – the practice of exploring potential
commercial uses of natural resources
and related traditional knowledge. This has
caused considerable concern amongst Latin American communities that knowledge
and resources
are being appropriated with little or
16 Diamond vs. Chakrabarty[1980] USSC 119; , 447 U.S. 303
(1980)
no benefit to the peoples concerned, and whose cultural beliefs may also be
being ignored in the process.
- In
response to this problem, the Andean Community17 has introduced a
Common Intellectual Property Regime.18 Article 3 of this regime
states:
The Member Countries shall ensure that the protection
granted to intellectual property elements shall be accorded while safeguarding
and respecting their biological and genetic heritage, together with the
traditional knowledge of their indigenous, African American,
or local
communities. As a result, the granting of patents on inventions that have been
developed on the basis of material obtained
from that heritage or that knowledge
shall be subordinated to the acquisition of that material in accordance with
international,
Andean Community, and national law.
The regime also restricts the patentability of living things and genetic
material (Articles 15(b) and 20(c)). Where inventions are
developed or obtained
from genetic material originating in one of the member countries, or make use of
traditional knowledge, applicants
must show that they have permission to use the
genetic material or traditional knowledge (Articles 26(h) and (i)).
How Should New Zealand Approach Biotechnology Patents?
- The
1992 paper recommended the repeal of section 1719 of the Patents Act
1953, on the grounds that patent law is not the appropriate mechanism to control
the development and use of certain
inventions, and that refusing to provide
patent protection would not affect the development or subsequent use of
inventions considered
ethically concerning. It was also considered inappropriate
that the Commissioner of Patents be required to determine ethical
questions.
- Since
that time however, there has been a growing body of interest in both
intellectual property law reform and issues related to
genetic modification and
associated technologies. It has become apparent that there is a sufficient
degree of concern and in some
instances opposition to any reform of the Act
which might either extend patentability in these areas, or which may in turn
result
in the granting of patent rights to inventions based upon living
organisms.
- Submissions
to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, developing countries’
interventions to the TRIPS Council on issues
related to Article 27.3(b) of the
WTO TRIPS agreement, and a growing body of academic and other work in this area
suggest it is timely
for New Zealand to consider its position on these matters
again. The areas of greatest concern are the patenting of genes or gene
sequences, and the patenting of living
17 Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela.
18 The text of this agreement can be found at http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/treaties/dec/D486e.htm.
19 S17: “If it appears to the Commissioner in
the case of any application for a patent that the use of the invention in
respect
of which the application is made would be contrary to morality, the
Commissioner may refuse the application.”
organisms, particularly plants and animals. Both gene sequences and non-human
living organisms are patentable in New Zealand.
- It
has been argued that genes should not be patentable on the grounds that they do
not meet the requirements for a patentable invention.
Reasons that are advanced
in support of this argument include:
- if a gene exists
in nature, it is not novel and therefore not patentable;
- an inventor who
isolates a gene does not actually invent or discover anything and should not be
entitled to a patent;
- determining the
structure of a gene is, at most, a discovery rather than an
invention;
- sequencing a
gene has become such a routine automated process that it cannot be regarded as
inventive.
- Those
who support the patenting of genes point out that it has long been possible to
obtain patents for chemical substances that occur
in nature. The rationale for
this, confirmed by judicial decisions, is such patents only cover the substance
when isolated and purified,
and that it does not exist in nature in an isolated
purified form. Once purified and isolated, the substance is in a useful form.
As
a gene is a chemical substance, that is, a DNA molecule, then an isolated and
purified DNA molecule that has the same sequence
as a naturally occurring gene
is considered patentable because the DNA molecule does not exist in nature in an
isolated and purified
form.
- The
grant of a patent on a gene or gene sequence does not mean that the patent owner
also “owns” any organism containing
that gene. A gene is simply a
DNA20 molecule, that is, it is a chemical substance, which can be
purified and isolated. A patent covering a gene only covers the isolated
and
purified DNA molecule that forms the gene, but does not cover the gene as it is
found in nature. So, for example, a person whose
body contained a patented gene
or gene sequence would not infringe the patent, and the patent owner would not
have any “rights”
over that person.
- If
a gene, whether or not it is patented, is inserted into a living organism, such
as a plant or an animal, the living organism could
be patented. This would allow
the patent owner to control the commercial exploitation of the plant or animal.
Commercial exploitation
of plants and animals, such as buying and selling them,
is widely accepted in our society. The idea that someone can own plants or
animals is also widely accepted. The buying and selling of human beings, or the
idea that a person can be someone else’s “property”
is,
however, considered to be morally repugnant. Because of this, patents that might
include human beings within their coverage are
not granted, either in New
Zealand or in other countries.
- The
Patents Act 1953 contains no specific ban on the granting of patents for human
beings. Any patent application that might include
human beings within its
coverage would
20 “DNA” stands for deoxyribonucleic
acid.
be refused by IPONZ on the grounds that it does not constitute a “manner
of manufacture” and it is unlikely that such
a patent would be granted.
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification considered that the issue should be
put beyond doubt and
recommended (recommendation 10.2) that the Patents Act 1953
be amended by adding a specific exclusion from patentability of human
beings and
the biological processes for their generation, in line with section 18(2) of the
Australian Patents Act 1990. The government has agreed that this amendment
should be made. It should be emphasised that such an exclusion would not prevent
research
taking place in this area. If it was intended to regulate such
research, specific legislation would be required.
- A
problem that has arisen in other countries, particularly the United States, is
that some applicants have obtained patents for large
numbers of gene sequences
without describing any use for them, in the hope that anyone who does discover a
use will have to pay a
royalty. There is no explicit requirement in the Patents
Act 1953 that an invention be “useful” before being granted
a
patent, although grant of a patent could be refused if the patent applicant had
not identified any use at all for the invention.21 In such a case,
the invention would considered to be a discovery rather than a patentable
invention. But if the applicant identifies
some use for the invention, however
insubstantial, the grant of a patent could not be refused. Lack of usefulness
is, however, a
ground for revoking a patent.
- If
there was a formal requirement for an invention to be “useful”
before a patent is granted, this would discourage, for
example, the patenting of
large numbers of gene sequences with no known use. In light of the developments
in Europe and the United
States described earlier, should New Zealand introduce
a requirement that an invention be shown to be “useful” before
a
patent is granted?
- The
patenting of living organisms, particularly animals, raises ethical concerns
where animal welfare is concerned. The European Union
Biotechnology Directive
(referred to earlier) provides that where genetic modification of an animal may
cause suffering without any
substantial benefit to humans or animals, patents
may be refused for the animal or a process for producing it on the grounds that
such inventions would be against public order or morality. Should IPONZ adopt
similar guidelines? Animal ethics committees in New
Zealand already monitor
animal research applications in these terms.
- Any
restrictions on the patentability of biotechnological inventions, for example to
restrict the patenting of genetic material or
living organisms, would need to be
consistent with the exclusions to patentability permitted by the WTO TRIPS
Agreement. Articles
27.2 and 27.3 allow parties to TRIPS to exclude from
patentability:
- inventions whose
commercial exploitation must be prevented for the protection or ordre public
or morality, including the protection human animal or plant life or health
or to avoid serious harm to the environment;
- diagnostic,
therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals;
and
21 General Electric Co Ltd's Application
(Patent) [1961] RPC 21.
- plants and
animals (other than micro-organisms) and biological processes for the production
of plants or animals.
- Among
the issues to consider in reviewing the current provisions under the Act is New
Zealand’s status as a net importer of
technology and products subject to
intellectual property rights. Most of our pharmaceutical and technological
products are imported.
Essentially New Zealand is on the receiving end of
“technology transfer” and consideration would need to be given to
the potential effects a less liberal patent system might have on our continued
ability to access such goods, and the extent to which
New Zealand might miss out
on the benefits provided by an expanding biotechnology
sector.
Plants and Patents
- New
Zealand provides protection to new plant varieties22 through the
provisions of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, and, since 1981 has been a
member of UPOV, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants. A plant variety
right will be granted if the variety is “new,
distinct, homogeneous, and stable” (s10(2)(d) of the Plant Variety Rights
Act 1987).
- The
grant of a plant variety right under the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 gives the
owner of the right the exclusive right to produce for sale, and to sell,
reproductive material of the variety concerned
(S17(1)(a) of the Plant Variety
Rights Act 1987). Where the variety is a plant that is a vegetatively propagated
fruit or vegetable producing plant, or a vegetatively propagated
ornamental
plant, the owner of the right also has the exclusive right to propagate the
variety for the purposes of the commercial
production of fruit, flowers or other
products of the variety.23
- It
is also possible for plants to be granted a patent under the Patents Act 1953.
Where a plant variety is protected by a patent,
the rights of the patent owner
are greater than those conferred by the grant of a plant variety right under the
Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, as shown in the table below. For example, the
owner of a plant variety right cannot prevent other breeders exploiting another
variety
bred from the protected variety. A plant variety right owner cannot
prevent farmers from saving seed from a previous crop in order
to sow a new
crop. The grant of a patent, however, would prevent the exploitation of
“essentially derived” varieties
and would also prevent farmers from
saving seed for their own use.
22 S2 of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 defines a
“variety” as a cultivar, or cultivated variety, of a plant, and
includes any clone, hybrid, stock, or line
of a plant; but does not include a
botanical variety of a plant.
23 S17(1)(b) Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, and Plant
Variety Rights (Grantees' Rights) Order 1997.
Comparison of Rights Conferred by the Plant Variety Rights Act
1987 and the Patents Act 1953:
|
|
Patents Act 1953
|
Right to prevent others from producing for sale reproductive material of
the protected variety:
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Right to prevent others from selling reproductive material of the protect
variety:
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Right to prevent others from producing and selling bred from the protected
variety:
|
No
|
Yes
|
Right to prevent farmers from sowing saved seed:
|
No
|
Yes
|
- New
Zealand patents have been granted for plants. Patent Nos. 330335 and 330495
claim varieties of olive plants, while patent No.
217113 claims plants that have
been made resistant to glyphosate herbicide by genetic
engineering.
- Article
2(1) of the 1978 revision of the UPOV Convention24, (to which New
Zealand is a party), states that member states may recognise the rights of plant
breeders by the grant either of a
special title of protection or of a patent.
The Article goes on to state that member states whose national law allows both
forms
of protection can provide only one of them for one and the same botanical
genus or species. Despite this provision, the present New
Zealand legislation
does not prevent plant breeders from seeking both patent and plant variety right
protection for the same genus
or species. That is, if a new plant variety meets
the criteria for protection under the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, and is
similarly eligible under the Patents Act – (that is, it falls within the
definition of invention), it can essentially
receive dual
protection.
- Amendment
of the Patents Act would be required to ensure consistency with the 1978 UPOV
Convention. This is because the existence
of a granted patent (or a patent
application) for the same genus or variety is not a ground for refusal of a
plant variety right
under the Convention. Alternatively, New Zealand could
consider ratifying the 1991 UPOV convention, which does not contain any
provision
equivalent to Article 2(1) of the 1978 Convention. This would require
amendment of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987.
24 The text of the UPOV Conventions can be found at
http://www.upov.int/eng/convntns/index.htm.
The Situation in Other Countries
Australia
- Protection
for new varieties of plants is available under the Plant Breeder’s Rights
Act 1994. Australia has ratified the 1991
UPOV Convention, which allows for a
level of protection for plant breeders that is similar to that provided by a
patent. Australia
also allows plants, including new plant varieties, to be
granted a patent under the Patents Act 1990.
European Community
- Article
53(b) of the European Patent Convention states that:
European Patents shall not be granted in respect of plant or
animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production
of
plants or animals; this provision does not apply to microbiological processes or
the products thereof.
Article 4(2) of the European Biotechnology Directive (Directive 98/44), however,
states that inventions which concern plants or animals
shall be patentable if
the invention is not confined to a specific plant or animal variety.
United States
- In
the United States, protection for asexually reproduced new plant varieties is
available under Chapter 15 of the United States Patents Act (Title 35, United
States Code). Sexually reproduced varieties are protected under the Plant
Variety Protection Act (Chapter 57, Title
7 of the United States Code).
Following the decision of the US Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in
Ex Parte Hibberd,25 which held that seeds, plants, and plant
tissue were eligible for the grant of a patent, the United States Patent Office
also grants
patents for plants under Chapter 10 of the United States Patents
Act. Chapter 10 deals with the granting of patents for inventions in
general.
International Obligations
- Article
27.3(b) of the TRIPS agreement provides that members may exclude certain matters
from patentability, including plants or animals.
The Agreement requires,
however, that members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties
(as opposed to plants themselves) either by way of patents or by an
effective sui generis system, that is, by way of legislation especially
intended for this purpose.
Should Plants Be Eligible for Two Forms of Protection?
- The
availability, in New Zealand of two forms of protection for plant varieties
raises two questions
25 227 USPQ 443
- should plant
varieties be eligible for two forms of protection? and
- are patents an
appropriate form of protection for plants?
- It
is not clear why plant varieties should be eligible for two forms of protection,
when inventions that do not involve plants are
only eligible for one. As
discussed earlier, a patent gives a greater level of protection than a plant
variety right. If, however,
New Zealand were to ratify the 1991 UPOV Convention,
new plant varieties would be entitled to a level of protection similar to,
although
not necessarily the same as, that provided by a
patent.
- Article
14 of the 1991 UPOV Convention extends the protection provided by a plant
variety right to cover varieties that are “essentially
derived”
26 from a protected variety. Ratification by New Zealand of the 1991
UPOV Convention would be in line with Recommendation 10.1 of the
Royal
Commission on Genetic Modification which recommended that the Plant Variety
Rights Act 1987 be amended to introduce the concept of essentially derived
varieties. The government has agreed in principle with this recommendation,
subject to the outcome of the review of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 being
undertaken in tandem with Stage 3 of the the review of the Patents Act 1953.
Article 15(2) of the 1991 UPOV Convention also
allows member countries to
provide that the use by farmers of their saved seed would not infringe a plant
variety right.
- If
it were decided that plants should be eligible for only one form of protection
what form should this take? If it were decided that
plants should be protected
by patents only this would mean repeal of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. The
future course of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 is discussed in a Discussion
Paper released simultaneously with this paper.
Are Patents an Appropriate form of Protection for
Plants?
- The
rights provided by a patent are greater than those that may be allowed by the
grant of a plant variety right. For example, if
a plant or plant variety is the
subject of a patent, then, as noted earlier, farmers would not be able to save
or store seed to sow
a subsequent crop. While this may be of benefit to patent
owners, it may disadvantage farmers who would have to pay to use saved
seed,
when in the past they have not had to do so. If it was considered desirable that
farmers continue to be able to freely use
their saved seed, it would be
necessary for the Patents Act to specifically exclude plants from patent
protection.
- The
granting of patents for genetically modified plants has lead to fears that
growers whose crops are accidentally contaminated by
these plants may be sued
for patent
26 The 1991 UPOV Convention states that: “A
variety shall be deemed to be essentially derived from another variety ('the
initial
variety') when: it is predominantly derived from the initial variety, or
from a variety that is itself predominantly derived from
the initial variety,
while retaining the expression of the essential characteristics that result from
the genotype or combination
of genotypes of the initial variety, if it is
clearly distinguishable from the initial variety, and except for the differences
which
result from the act of derivation, it conforms to the initial variety in
the expression of the essential characteristics that result
from the genotype or
combination of genotypes of the initial variety."
infringement. A recent judgement of the Canadian Federal Court27 has,
however, indicated that mere accidental contamination of a crop with a patented
plants would not infringe the patent.
- One
possible disadvantage of this approach is that there may be some plants which,
although excluded from patent protection, would
also not be eligible for a plant
variety right. For example, it has been suggested that physiological or
biochemical differences
in a cultivar, such as pine trees with different fibre
characteristics than other pine trees, or changed oil content in an oil seed
such as sunflowers might not be protectable by plant variety
rights.28
Questions
Biotechnology and Patents
- Should
New Zealand’s patent legislation exclude plants or animals from
patentability? If so, why?
- Should
some biotechnological inventions be excluded from patentability. If so, which
ones? Why? What benefits or costs could there
be to New Zealand in providing
such exclusions?
- Should
New Zealand’s patent legislation contain an explicit requirement that an
invention be “useful” before it
can be granted a
patent?
Plants and Patents
- Is
it appropriate that plant breeders should be able to gain both patent protection
and plant variety rights protection for the same
genus or species? If so,
why?
- If
only one form of protection for plant varieties is provided, what should this
be? Why?
- If
plant breeders can obtain only one form of protection for their new plant
varieties, should plant breeders be able to decide which
form of protection
should be applied to a particular variety, or should this be specified in
legislation?
27 Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company v
Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd.
28 Daniel Hampton and Dr Astrid Baker, “Protecting Plant
Breeders’ Investment: Patents and New Plant Cultivars in New
Zealand”
New Zealand Intellectual Property Journal, August 2000,
page 269.
6. New Issues in Patentability 2: Business Methods and
Software
A. Business Method Patents
What is a Business Method?
- There
is no universally agreed definition of a “business method”. One
definition that gives a good idea of the sort of
things covered by the term
“business method” is that provided by the draft United States
Business Methods Improvement
Act 200029 (HR
5364):
(1) a method of
(a) administering, managing, or otherwise operating an
enterprise or organisation, including a technique used in doing or conducting
business; or
(b) processing financial data;
(2) any technique used in athletics, instruction, or personal
skills; and
(3) any computer-assisted implementation of a method described
in paragraph (1) or a technique described in paragraph (2).
Why Are Business Methods an Issue?
- Business
methods, along with computer software have, in the past, not been considered
suitable subject matter for patent protection
by many countries. In recent
years, however, some countries, particularly the United States, have begun to
allow such patents. Developments
in computer technology, particularly the
Internet, have made business method patents a potentially large source of income
for the
owners of such patents.
- The
grant of these patents has not been without controversy. This has largely
centred around the suggestion that Patent Offices do
not have the appropriate
expertise to adequately examine all applications in this fields. It has been
alleged that this has resulted
in patents being granted for business methods and
software that are not novel or inventive. It has also been suggested that
allowing
patents for business methods may in fact stifle innovation in these
fields rather than encourage it, and that business methods should
not be
patentable at all.
29 The Business Methods Improvement Act 2000 has been
referred to the Judiciary Committee of the United States Congress, and has not
been passed into law. This legislation is an attempt to make business method
patents harder to obtain, and easier to challenge, in
the United States. The
text of this Act can be found at: http://www.house.gov/berman/HR5364.pdf
Business Method Patents in New Zealand
- The
definition of a patentable invention in the New Zealand Patents Act
195330 does not specifically exclude the granting of patents for
business methods. IPONZ will grant patents for such methods if they are
considered to fall within the definition of invention, that is, if they
constitute a “manner of new manufacture”.
- The
question of whether a particular method falls within the definition of a
patentable invention is ultimately determined by the
Courts. The High Court of
Australia in National Research and Development Corporation v Commissioner of
Patents31 stated that for a process to be considered a
“manner of new manufacture” it must result in a product that is an
“artificially
created state of affairs” that has utility in the
field of economic endeavour.
- The
Australian patents legislation in force at the time of the “National
Research” decision, (the Patents Act 1952) contained
the same definition
of invention as the New Zealand Patents Act 1953. The New Zealand courts, and
hence IPONZ, have followed this
decision.
- Any
method (and not just a business method) that meets the requirement set out above
will be granted a patent provided it meets the
other requirements of the Patents
Act 1953.
- Methods
that are no more than mere schemes or plans would not be considered manners of
new manufacture,32 as they do not give rise to an “artificially
created state of affairs”, and are unlikely to be granted a patent. Such
methods may, however, be patentable if they are linked to some mode of carrying
out the method, for example, by implementing the
method using a computer. As a
result, many business method patents include the use of a computer or computer
software.
Patenting of Business Methods in Other Countries
European Union
- According
to Article 52(1) of the EPC, European patents shall be granted for “any
inventions which are susceptible of industrial
application, which are new and
which involve an inventive step.” Subparagraph 2 of Article 52 sets out
exceptions to this rule:
- discoveries,
scientific theories and mathematical methods;
30 “Invention” means any manner of new
manufacture the subject of letters patent and grant of privilege within section
6
of the Statute of Monopolies and any new method or process of testing
applicable to the improvement or control of manufacture. (S2,
Patents Act
1953).
31 [1959] CLR 252
32See, for example, D.A.& K’s Application, 43 RPC
154; Hiller’s Application [1969] RPC 267; I.B.M.’s
Application, [1980] FSR 564.
- schemes, rules
and the methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and
programs for computers;
- presentations of
information.
Methods of doing business, among others, are specifically excluded from
patentability. The EPC, however, does not specifically define
a “method
for doing business”.
- In
a recent decision33 of the Board of Appeal of the European Patent
Office, it was observed:
Having technical character is an implicit requirement of the EPC
to be met by an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1)EPC.
and
Methods only involving economic concepts and practices of doing
business are not inventions within the meaning of Article 52(1)EPC.
A feature of
a method which concerns the use of technical means for a purely non-technical
purpose and/or for processing purely non-technical
information does not
necessarily confer a technical character to such a method.
United States
- The
definition of a patentable invention in the United States Patent
Act34 does not specifically exclude business methods. It was long
considered that business methods were inherently unpatentable. In 1998,
this
practice was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (CAFC) in a decision (the “State
Street”
decision)35 which held that the subject matter of a United States
patent is not inherently unpatentable merely because it relates to a method
of
doing business.
- Guidelines36
to United States patent examiners dealing with business method applications
state:
The claimed invention as a whole must accomplish a practical
application. That is, it must produce a "useful, concrete and tangible
result."
State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601-02. The purpose of this
requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions
that possess a certain
level of "real world" value, as opposed to subject matter that represents
nothing more than an idea or concept,
or is simply a starting point for future
investigation or research (Brenner v. Manson[1966] USSC 48; , 383 U.S. 519, 528-36[1966] USSC 48; , 148 USPQ
689, 693-96); In re Ziegler,
[1993] USCAFED 474; 992, F.2d 1197, 1200- 03[1993] USCAFED 474; , 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Accordingly, a
33 Case No T 0931/95 – 3.5.1 see http://www.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t950931eu1.pdf
34 United States Code 35 §101: “Whoever invents or
discovers any new or useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition
of
matter, or any new or useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of
this title.”
35 State Street Trust and Bank Company vs
Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 D.3d 1368, (Fed. Cir. 1998)
36 United States Patent and Trademark Office Manual of Patent
Examining Practice, §. 2106, (II)(A)(1)
complete disclosure should contain some indication of the practical
application for the claimed invention, i.e., why the applicant
believes the
claimed invention is useful.
and
A process that consists solely of the manipulation of an
abstract idea is not concrete or tangible.
Australia
- S18(1)
of the Australian Patents Act 1990 states that an invention is a patentable
invention if the invention (so far as claimed in any claim)
is:
a manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 6 of the
Statute of Monopolies; and, when compared with the prior art base as it existed
before the priority date of that claim, is
novel, and involves an inventive
step, and is useful.
- Whether
business methods can be patented will depend on whether the method meets the
requirements set down in s18(1), in particular the requirement that the
invention be a “manner of manufacture.” In its publication
Patents for Schemes or Plans37, IPAustralia (the trading name
of the Australian Patent Office) states:
Essentially a patent may be granted for a scheme or plan where
there is a means for putting the scheme or plan into effect.
Examples of such patentable schemes are:
A method of analysing business performance by operating a
computer system to set specified parameters and thresholds in accordance
with
preselected criteria and to compare business performance against the parameters
and thresholds.
and
A method of raising funds by seeking sponsors to donate
products, and programming a computerised random number generator to operate
in a
specified way to conduct a raffle of those products.
- Patents
for Schemes or Plans goes on to state:
...a scheme (including a business scheme) or plan is, in itself,
not suitable for a patent because it does not specifically give rise
to an
artificially created end result of economic utility.”
Examples of unpatentable schemes are given as:
“A method of raising funds by seeking sponsors to donate products, and
conducting a raffle of those products.”
and
“A method of analysing the performance of an investment by creating a
benchmark, and comparing the investment to the benchmark.
37 http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/library/PDFS/patents/schemes.pdf
This suggests that unpatentable schemes can be turned into patentable subject
matter by implementing them in some way, for example
on a computer.
B. Computer Software
What Is Computer Software?
- Computer
software or computer programs can be defined as “a series of instructions
written in a computer language which enables
the computer hardware to perform a
particular function”. In many countries, including New Zealand, computer
software was, in
the past, generally regarded as not being suitable subject
matter for a patent.
Why Is Computer Software an Issue?
- The
issues surrounding the patenting of computer software are similar to those
surrounding the patenting of business methods. That
is, that Patent Offices do
not have the expertise or resources to adequately examine all patent
applications for inventions involving
software, resulting in patents being
granted for software that is neither new or inventive. It has also been
suggested that the patenting
of computer software would act to stifle
innovation, and that computer software should not be patentable at
all.
- It
should be noted that computer software already enjoys copyright protection under
the Copyright Act 1994. This gives protection
against direct copying of the
software, but does not protect the principles or ideas underlying the
software.
Computer Software Patents in New Zealand
- Up
until 1993, computer software was held to be unpatentable in New Zealand. On 30
June 1993, the Commissioner of Patents released
a decision on Patent Application
No 193718, in the name of Clarks Limited.38 This application
concerned a method of producing a pattern for a shoe by providing a computer
with information defining the three
dimensional shape of the last. The
Commissioner eventually allowed a patent to be granted, notwithstanding some
reservations on whether
such subject matter should be eligible for patent
protection under New Zealand law.
- The
decision on Clark’s Application was followed in 1995 by a further decision
of the Commissioner in patent applications 221797,
233797 and 233798 in the name
of Hughes Aircraft Company. The Hughes Aircraft applications concerned methods
for calculating a conflict
alert status for an aircraft using a computer. In
allowing these applications, the Commissioner followed the decision of the
Federal
Court of Australia in International Business Machines Corporation v
the Commissioner of Patents,39 and adopted the guidelines for
patentability of computer software-related inventions as used at the time by the
Australian Patent
Office following this Court decision. These guidelines are now
used
38 Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents can be
found on the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand website, www.iponz.govt.nz.
39 (1992) IPR 417.
by IPONZ. This means that computer software is now patentable in New Zealand,
provided that it meets the requirements in the guidelines.
- The
guidelines for determining the patentability of computer software related
inventions now used by IPONZ are as follows:
- A method-type
claim must define a method, which either directly, or by implication embodies
[a] commercially useful effect.
- A claim to a
mathematical algorithm per se is not patentable, because it does not
produce a commercially useful effect. A commercially useful effect can only
arise when the
mathematical algorithm is implemented in some manner to produce a
result.
- A claim to a
mathematical algorithm when used in a computer is patentable so long as a
commercially useful effect is produced.
The term “commercially useful effect” in this
context is an “artificially created state of affairs that has utility
in
the field of economic endeavour” as set out in the National Research
and Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents.40
Patentability of Computer Software in Other
Countries
Australia
- As
in New Zealand, computer software had long been held to be unpatentable in
Australia. This policy was changed after the decision
in IBM v Commissioner
of Patents referred to above in the discussion on the patentability of
software in New Zealand. Since then, the Australian Patent Office has
adopted
amended guidelines, based on another Australian Federal Court decision, CCOM
v Jeijing.41 This case was an appeal from an earlier decision
revoking a patent. The patent in question was for an apparatus for storing and
retrieving
Chinese characters in a word processor.
- The
test now used by IPAustralia for determining the patentability of software
patents is whether there is:42
a mode or manner of
achieving an end result which is an artificially created state of affairs of
utility in the field of economic
endeavour
40 Wood, “Patents in Computer Software –
Commercially Useful is Not Enough”, (1998) 9 Australian Intellectual
Property Journal 134.
41 [1993] FCA 653; (1993) 27 IPR 577
42 Australian Patent Office Manual of Practice and
Procedure, Volume 2, Para. 8.2.7.2.
United States
- Following
a series of judicial decisions,43 computer software is now considered
to be patentable in the United States provided it meets certain conditions. For
example, USPTO’s
"Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related
Inventions"44 includes the following statement:
A process that merely manipulates an abstract idea or performs a
purely mathematical algorithm is non-statutory despite the fact that
it might
inherently have some usefulness. For such subject matter to be statutory, the
claimed process must be limited to a practical
application of the abstract idea
or mathematical algorithm in the technological arts. For example, a computer
process that simply
calculates a mathematical algorithm that models noise is
non-statutory. However, a claimed process for digitally filtering noise
employing the mathematical algorithm is statutory.
European Community
- Article
52(2) of the European Patent Convention sets out those things that are excluded
from patentability. These include:
- discoveries,
scientific theories and mathematical methods;
- schemes, rules
and the methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and
programs for computers; presentations
of information.
- This
specifically excludes computer programs.
The Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office has, however, held that the
exclusion from patentability of computer programs as
such in Article 52(2) does
not prevent the patenting of computer-related inventions. “Case Law of the
Boards of Appeal”,
Part 1, Chapter A, Section 1.145
states:
Decision T 208/84 (OJ 1987, 14) set out the
principles governing the patentability of computer-related inventions. Even if
the idea underlying an invention
may be considered to reside in a mathematical
method, a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does
not
seek protection for the mathematical method as such. A claim directed
to a technical process carried out under the control of a program (whether by
means of hardware or software) cannot
be regarded as relating to a computer
program as such. A claim which can be considered as being directed to a
computer set up to operate in accordance with a specified program (whether
by
means of hardware or software) for controlling or carrying out a technical
process cannot be regarded as relating to a computer
program as such.
43 For example, Re Freeman 197 USPQ 464
(1978); Diamond v Diehr [1981] USSC 40; 209 USPQ 1 (1981).
44 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/analysis/files/guides.doc
45 See http://www.european-patent-office.org/case_law/english/I_A_1-1.htm
This means that computer software is now patentable in the European Community,
provided the software is directed to carrying out
a “technical
process”.
How Should New Zealand Treat Patent Applications for Business
Methods and Computer Software?
- As
mentioned above, under New Zealand law, there is no absolute bar to the
patenting of business methods. Such methods can be patented,
provided that they
result in an “artificially created state of affairs that has utility in
the field of economic endeavour”.
As there is no specific definition of
“business method”, it is not possible to state how many
“business method”
patents have been granted in New
Zealand.
- Similarly,
computer software can also be patented in New Zealand, again as long as it is
connected with an “artificially created
state of affairs that has utility
in the field of economic endeavour”.
- The
first question that arises is whether New Zealand should be granting patents for
computer software or business methods at all.
At present, New Zealand’s
international obligations do not require New Zealand to grant such patents, so
it is possible for
New Zealand to consider the issue from a local point of view,
that is, what provides the most benefit (or least cost) to New
Zealand.
What Are the Arguments for and against Granting Patents for
Business Methods and Computer Software?
- The
main arguments advanced in favour of granting patents for business methods and
software are:
- the granting of
patents is necessary to stimulate innovation; and
- that inventors
of new computer software and business methods are entitled to protection for
their intellectual property, just as other
inventors are, and that there is no
logical reason to exclude these things from patentability.
- The
theoretical justification for the granting of patents, as set out in Section 1
of this document, is that the exclusive right conferred
by the patent stimulates
innovation by giving innovators an opportunity to profit from their investment
in research and development.
In return society gains something that it might not
otherwise have had – the disclosure of an invention that is new and
innovative.
This gain to society is considered to provide a benefit to society
that exceeds the costs of granting an exclusive right.
- If
innovation is occurring without the stimulation of patents, there may be no
benefit to society by granting patents, as there may
be no increase in
innovation. On the other hand, society will still have to bear the costs imposed
by the existence of the patents.
In this case the granting of patents would not
be justified, as the costs would exceed the benefits.
- On
1 November 2000, the United Kingdom Patent Office released a consultation
document46 Should Patents Be Granted for Computer Software or Ways
of Doing Business. After considering the responses, the United Kingdom
government concluded:
There is no sign, at least to date, of a want of innovation in
computer-implemented business methods, and nor was there in the US
before
business methods became patentable in 1998. Intense innovation has characterised
this field. The Government's conclusion is
that those who favour some form of
patentability for business methods have not provided the necessary evidence that
it would be likely
to increase innovation. Unless and until that evidence is
available, ways of doing business should remain unpatentable.
(The United Kingdom is a party to the European Patent Convention, and the United
Kingdom Patents Act 1977 incorporates the Convention’s
exclusion from
patentability of methods for doing business and computer programs.)
- With
regard to computer software, the United Kingdom government
concluded:
The Government's conclusion is thus to reaffirm the principle
that patents are for technological innovations. Software should not
be
patentable where there is no technological innovation, and technological
innovations should not cease to be patentable merely
because the innovation lies
in software. However, the Government agrees with those respondents who said that
at present the law is
not clear enough, and that this is damaging. Clarification
is needed. This raises complex and technical questions, but the central
difficulty can be expressed simply: how to define the boundary determining when
software is, and is not, part of a technological
innovation, so that what is
patentable will be clear in specific cases in future. The Government intends to
take this matter up with
its partners in the European Union and the European
Patent Convention as a matter of urgency.
This raises the question as to whether New Zealand should clarify its patent
legislation to require patents to be for “technological
innovations”.
- The
other main argument advanced for granting patents for business methods and
computer software is that there is no logical reason
for denying them patent
protection. Developers of other inventions can receive patent protection; why
should developers of software
and business methods not be able to receive
similar protection?
- An
argument against the granting of patents for business methods and in particular,
computer software, is that it actually discourages
rather than encourages
innovation. If new advances in these fields are patented, the argument goes,
they will be unavailable for
others to use during the life of the patent. It is
suggested that new computer software builds incrementally on existing software.
If programmers are unable to use the ideas in this existing software because it
is protected by patents, innovation will be stifled,
especially given the short
commercial “life” of most software.
- It
is also argued that the software industry has flourished in the past without the
incentive of patent protection. Much of the software
developed in recent times
is not the subject of patent protection. It has even been argued that it was the
lack of patent
46 http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/annexa.htm
protection, and consequent free access by developers to the innovations of
others before them, that is responsible for the growth
and prosperity of the
software industry.
- The
arguments raised against the patenting of business methods and software could be
raised against the patenting of any newly developed
technology. Most inventions,
whether patented or not, are improvements on already existing inventions. In the
past, software and
business methods were generally not patentable. As a result,
people developing new software or business methods were accustomed to
building
on the ideas of others. If software and business methods are patentable, this
activity may become more difficult. This may
have negative implications for
local developers, as most New Zealand patents, and therefore most business
method and software patents,
are granted to foreign
owners.
- The
granting of patents to business methods and computer software has attracted
considerable criticism overseas, particularly in the
United States. The
criticism has largely centred around the alleged inability of patent offices to
adequately examine such applications
rather than whether it is appropriate to
grant patents at all for business methods and software. It is claimed that this
has led
to the granting of patents for business methods and software which are
neither new nor inventive. While such patents would be held
to be invalid by the
Courts in revocation proceedings, the process of challenging the validity of a
patent can be expensive. As a
result, not all of these invalid patents may be
subject to challenge.
- The
criticism of patent offices has been:
- that patent
examiners lack the knowledge and appropriate resources to adequately examine
applications for business method and software
patents; and
- that much of the
“prior art”47 involving business methods and software may
be difficult for patent examiners to locate.
These issues are likely to be relevant in New Zealand as well.
- One
other problem that may arise in New Zealand is that IPONZ currently does not
examine patent applications for inventive step or
“obviousness”. As
a result, some business methods and computer software that are obvious variants
of known methods or
software may be granted a patent. While obviousness is a
ground for revoking a patent, the revocation process can be costly and
time-consuming,
and, as noted previously, not all invalid patents may be
challenged.
- It
does seem then, that any problems associated with business method and software
patents in New Zealand are likely to be due to difficulties
in examining such
patent applications, rather than with the principle of patenting business
methods or software. Changes proposed
to the Patents Act in Stage 1 and Stage 2
of the current Review however, may go some way towards mitigating these
problems.
47 “Prior art” is material published
prior to the filing date of a patent application that is relevant in determining
whether
an invention is novel and inventive.
- Included
among the changes is a proposal to introduce examination for inventive step.
This will reduce the likelihood of invalid patents
being granted. If invalid
patents are granted, other changes that have been proposed will make it easier
to challenge the validity
of a patent. To this end, a re-examination procedure
has been proposed as well as a simplified revocation procedure. The
re-examination
procedure will allow anyone to submit to IPONZ any material which
may suggest that a patent or patent application is not new or lacks
an inventive
step.
- Another
factor that may need to be considered is the effect of any change to the
definition of invention in the Patents Act. If the
current definition is
replaced, the criteria now applied by IPONZ in assessing the patentability of
inventions involving business
methods and software may no longer apply. This may
mean for example, that inventions involving methods that do not produce an
“artificially
created state of affairs that has utility in the field of
economic endeavour” would become patentable. This could include such
things as mere schemes or plans, and mathematical algorithms. Would this be
desirable?
International Obligations
- The
TRIPS agreement specifies, in Article 27.1 that “patents shall be
available for any inventions, whether products or processes,
in all fields of
technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are
capable of industrial application.”
The TRIPS agreement was negotiated at
a time when most countries did not allow patents for business methods and
computer software
as they were thought to be inherently unpatentable. As a
consequence, it is not clear whether the TRIPS agreement includes or excludes
business methods and software. It can be noted though, that the European Patent
Convention has retained its exclusions of business
methods and computer programs
despite the provisions of TRIPS.
- Any
restrictions on the patenting of business methods and computer software may not
be inconsistent with TRIPS. Such restrictions
however, may attract criticism
from other countries with more liberal patenting regimes. Such restrictions
would also mean that New
Zealand would be out of step with
Australia.
Questions
- Business
methods and computer software are currently patentable in New Zealand. Should
they continue to be patentable? Why?
- If
business methods and/or computer software should continue to be patentable in
New Zealand, are the criteria for granting a patent
adequate? If not, what
should they be?
- Should
there be an explicit requirement for business methods and computer software to
possess “technical character” in
order to be
patentable.
- What
resources might IPONZ require to ensure that it is able to adequately examine
patent applications involving business methods
and computer
software?
- If
business methods were to be excluded from patent protection, should some other
form of protection be given to them? If so, what
should this be?
Should schemes or plans, mathematical algorithms and other abstract concepts
remain unpatentable? If not, why not?
- If
mathematical algorithms, schemes and plans, and other abstract concepts were to
remain unpatentable, should they be the subject
of specific exclusions in the
Patents Act?
7. Patents for Methods of Medical Treatment of Humans
What Is a Method of Medical Treatment of Humans?
- The
term “method of medical treatment of humans” covers methods of
treating human illness. These may include such things
as surgical procedures,
such as a method of doing heart surgery, or drug treatment regimes, such as
treating a medical condition
by taking a particular drug or combination of
drugs. It does not include such things as pharmaceuticals or surgical apparatus
that
may be used in a method of treatment.
Why Are Methods of Medical Treatment an Issue?
- Currently,
methods of medical treatment of humans are not patentable in New Zealand. Most
other countries do not allow such methods
to be patented either. The New Zealand
Court of Appeal has held that any change in this policy should be made by
Parliament, not
the Courts, given the commercial, economic, ethical and social
implications involved. Despite this, there have been several challenges
to the
current policy of refusing patent protection to methods of medical treatment. As
the Courts have made it clear that the issue
is one that must be dealt with by
Parliament, the current review of the Patents Act 1953 provides a good
opportunity to discuss the
issue. Whatever the outcome, the result will be
greater certainty for all concerned.
What Is the Situation in New Zealand?
- The
definition of invention in s2 of the Patents Act 195348 does not
specifically exclude methods of medical treatment of humans from patentability.
The definition of invention in the Patents
Act 1953 is the same as that in the
United Kingdom Patents Act 1949 (now repealed). Decisions49 of the
United Kingdom courts, interpreting this definition, established that a method
of medical treatment of human beings to prevent
or cure disease is not a
“manner of manufacture”. On the basis of these decisions, patents
for methods of medical treatment
of humans have been refused by IPONZ. These
decisions were followed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal50 which
held that a method of treatment of human illness or disease did not qualify for
the granting of a patent. In this decision all
three judges agreed not only that
such a method should not be granted a patent, but also that any change in this
policy was a matter
for the legislature, not the courts, to
decide.
- More
recently, the New Zealand Court of Appeal has held51 that methods of
medical treatment can no longer be treated as not being an invention. The Court
also held that if
48 “‘Invention’ means any manner of
new manufacture the subject of letters patent and grant of privilege within
section
6 of the Statute of Monopolies.”
49 For example, Schering A.G.’s Application
[1971] RPC 337; Upjohn Co. (Robert’s) Application, [1977] RPC
185.
50 Wellcome Foundation v. Commissioner of Patents
1983 NZLR 385
51 Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd vs The Commissioner of
Patents and Others (CA 56/99)
methods of medical treatment were to be excluded from patentability, it must be
on moral or policy grounds, but did not go so far
as to say that patents must be
granted for such methods. The earlier decision, that a change in policy relating
to the patenting
of methods of medical treatment of humans was a matter for the
legislature, was not challenged.
IPONZ has continued to refuse patent claims to methods of medical treatment.
- Although
methods of medical treatment of humans are not patentable in New Zealand, not
all methods involving medical treatment are
excluded. Previous United Kingdom
court decisions have attempted to draw a line between what is and is not an
unpatentable method
of medical treatment. The line is somewhat arbitrary, but
essentially, methods of medical treatment of humans are excluded only where
the
treatment is for an illness, or to relieve pain and suffering. Methods of
treatment of humans that have been held to be patentable
include the following
(the list is not exhaustive):
- The human is not
ill, i.e. is not actually suffering from a disease, for example cosmetic
surgery;
- The human is
suffering from a condition which is part of a continuum from one extreme to
another, in which variation from an arbitrary
norm is regarded as being an
illness, e.g. baldness, infertility, obesity;
- Elective
treatments for conditions which are not in themselves illness, e.g.
contraceptive methods or reducing the desire to smoke;
- Diagnostic
testing which does not require surgery, or treatment of conditions which do not
actually require treatment of the human,
e.g. killing bacteria on the
skin;
- Treatment of
minor conditions where the active ingredient is incorporated into an
over-the-counter product.
Second Medical Use
- The
ban on the patentability of methods of medical treatment has caused problems
where a known substance already used to treat a particular
medical condition is
found to be useful in treating some other medical condition, this second use
having been previously unrecognised.
An example of this would be the discovery
that aspirin was useful in reducing the risk of heart attacks. Because the
substance is
not new, it cannot be patented (it may have already been patented).
If methods of medical treatment cannot be patented, then the
second use cannot
be patented either, as the only novelty is in the use to which the substance is
put. This leaves the discoverer
of the second medical use with no patent
protection, even though the costs of investigating the second medical use may be
high. Without
patent protection, there may be little incentive to investigate
the properties of existing pharmaceuticals to determine if they have
other,
previously unknown, medical uses.
- In
the European Community, where methods of medical treatment are also
unpatentable, the “Swiss type” claim was devised
to enable second
medical uses to obtain some patent protection. “Swiss type” claims
are patent claims52 of the form:
the use of [known compounds] for the production of
pharmaceutical compositions for the treatment of [a particular medical
condition]
The term “Swiss-type” comes from a 1984 decision of
the Swiss Intellectual Property Office to allow claims in this form.
IPONZ now
allows “Swiss-type” claims. This practice was upheld in the Court of
Appeal Decision in Pharmaceutical Management Agency v The Commissioner of
Patents and Others (CA56/99).
Medical Treatment Patents in Other Countries
Australia
- The
Australian Patents Act 1990 does not specifically exclude methods of medical
treatment of humans from patentability. The definition of invention in the 1990
Act53 (and in the now repealed 1952 Act) contains wording similar to
that in the New Zealand Patents Act 1953. Despite this, in 1994, the
Australian
Federal Court ruled54 that methods of medical treatment were
patentable in Australia. The Court reasoned that since the Australian Parliament
had not specifically
excluded medical treatment when it passed the 1990 Act,
Parliament did not intend that such methods should remain
unpatentable.
European Community
- Article
52(1) of the EPC states that “European patents shall be granted for any
inventions which are susceptible of industrial
application, which are new and
which involve an inventive step.” Paragraph 4 of Article 52 states
that:
Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or
therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body
shall not
be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within
the meaning of paragraph 1. This provision
shall not apply to products, in
particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods.
- Methods
of medical treatment are therefore not eligible for the grant of European
patents. All states that are parties to the EPC55 have implemented
the EPC as part of their national patent legislation.
52 Patent claims are a series of statements, usually
found at the end of a patent specification, which provide the legal definition
of
the exclusive right claimed by the patent owner.
53 S18(1)(a) requires a patentable invention to be
“a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of
Monopolies.”
54 Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd
[1994] IPR 383 at 421.
55 Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, Spain,
Finland, France, Turkey, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Monaco, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.
United States
- The
United States Patents Act does not exclude methods of medical treatment of
humans from patentability. Such methods may be granted
a patent in the United
States. From July 1996 newly issued medical process patents56 are,
however, no longer enforceable against medical professionals who infringe while
performing a medical or surgical procedure57. This exemption from
infringement proceedings only applies to surgical or medical procedures, and not
methods of treatment using
pharmaceutical compositions.
International Agreements
- Article
27.3 of the TRIPS Agreement allows member countries to exclude from
patentability “diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical
methods for the
treatment of humans or animals.” Most countries exclude methods of medical
treatment of humans from patentability.
What Should New Zealand’s Policy on Patents for Medical
Treatment Methods Be?
- In
considering what policy New Zealand should adopt, there appear to be just three
basic options:
- Allow methods of
medical treatment to be patented;
- Allow methods of
medical treatment to be patented, but provide that medical practitioners who use
a patented method without the patent
owner’s permission would be exempt
from infringement proceedings.
- In
deciding what policy New Zealand should adopt with regard to methods of medical
treatment, it will be necessary to weigh up the
costs and benefits to New
Zealand of each of the options identified above. In the discussion that follows,
the possible costs and
benefits of each option are set out, although no attempt
is made to quantify them.
Option i): Continue to Refuse to Grant Patents for Methods
of Medical Treatment of Humans
- If
New Zealand continues to refuse to grant patents for methods of medical
treatment, the main benefit is likely to be that the medical
profession will
continue to have free access to new medical procedures. The potential costs of
license fees and patent litigation
will be
56 A “medical process” is one that
involves the performance of a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but does
not include
the use of a pharmaceutical in a medical treatment.
57 United States Patents Act, Section 287, paragraph
(c).
avoided. The ethical problems that might arise where doctors had a financial
interest in particular procedures would also be avoided.
- It
is not clear that there would be any disadvantage to New Zealand in continuing
to refuse to grant patents for methods of medical
treatment of humans. There
appears to be no empirical evidence to suggest that this acts as a disincentive
to medical research in
New Zealand (or anywhere else). One possible problem
might be that owners of medical treatment patents overseas may try to prevent
the use of their methods in New Zealand if they cannot be patented here. It is,
however, difficult to see how this could be achieved
without keeping details of
the method secret. This would not be possible though, if the method had already
been patented in another
country. In any case, there is no evidence that New
Zealanders’ access to new methods of medical treatment has been restricted
by the current ban on the patenting of such methods.
- A
possible disadvantage of maintaining the current position on patents for methods
of medical treatment is that it would place New
Zealand’s patent regime
out of step with that of Australia, which allows such patents. Does this cause
any problems for businesses
in the two countries? Most patents granted in
Australia and New Zealand are granted to owners who are not resident in either
country.
Few, if any, local businesses may be affected by the differences in
patent law on this issue.
Option ii): Allow Patents to Be Granted for Methods of
Medical Treatment of Humans
- Those
in favour of the grant of patents for methods of medical treatment argue that
the reasons for granting patents in the first
place – to encourage
innovation and to provide an opportunity to benefit from effort and investment
in research and development
– apply equally to medical treatment as to
anything else. If patents are not granted for methods of medical treatment, it
is
argued, inventors or businesses may be unwilling to invest in research and
development.
- As
noted earlier, there appears to be no empirical data to support this argument.
In any case, financial rewards may not be the only
incentives to innovation in
the field of medical treatment, particularly where the innovator is a doctor or
other medical practitioner.
Rewards such as prestige, peer recognition, and
respect by society may be other drivers of innovation. Some doctors may be
motivated
to develop new medical treatments by the need to improve the health or
quality of life of their patients rather than by any desire
for personal
advancement.
- The
development of new methods of medical treatment, particularly surgical methods,
may be much cheaper than the cost of, say, developing
a new drug. This may
reduce the need for an exclusive right to provide an opportunity for the
inventor of the new method to recover
the development
costs.
- Another
argument in favour of granting patents to methods of medical treatment is one of
consistency: that is, why should methods
for the treatment of disease be singled
out for exclusion from patent protection? What logical justification is there
for saying
that methods that produce that produce a cosmetic or functional
result are patentable, while those that produce a curative result
are not? Why
should substances and devices used in medical treatment be patentable, while
methods for their use are not? Against
this, it could be argued that the matter
is one of public policy. That is, the question of whether
methods of medical treatment of humans should be patentable or not should be
decided by considering what is in the best interests
of society as a whole.
- Most
developed countries have placed some restrictions on the patenting of methods of
medical treatment of humans. The lack of patents
to methods of medical treatment
does not seem to have slowed the advances in medical technology that have taken
place in the last
30 years.
- The
one area where the granting of patents may have a positive effect is in the
field of second medical use. Investigating a second
or subsequent medical use of
a known compound is likely to involve considerable investment. In such a case,
the availability of patent
protection may be necessary to provide an incentive
for research. The allowance of “Swiss-type” claims (see above) is
a
way of providing this incentive without the potential disadvantages of allowing
claims to methods of medical treatment.
- One
of the main disadvantages of granting patents for methods of medical treatment
would the likely increases in the costs of healthcare.
Doctors and other health
providers may face increased costs for patent licenses, and may also have to
take into account the cost
of patent infringement litigation. These extra costs
would add to the costs of the health system. Most New Zealand patents are
granted
to overseas owners, and this is also likely to be the case for medical
treatment patents. As a result, most of the revenue generated
by these patents
will flow offshore.
- Another
possible disadvantage is that access to medical procedures such as surgical
methods may be restricted if such procedures are
patented. Doctors, health
providers and patients may be unwilling or unable to pay the license fees
demanded by patent owners. Patent
owners may also restrict the number of
licenses that they are willing to grant. If licenses are restricted, then some
patients may
find that they have a reduced choice of doctor or surgeon. In some
cases, patients may be denied access to a particular method because
they are
unable to find a doctor who is licensed to perform it.
- The
granting of patents to methods of medical treatment may raise ethical problems.
Doctors who have a financial interest in a patented
method of treatment may use
that method, or refer patients to doctors who use that method in preference to
others, even though that
method may not be the most appropriate for that
particular patient. On the other hand, doctors who are unable, or unwilling, to
obtain
a license to use a patented method may use some other method, even though
this may not be as appropriate for the patient as the patented
method.
- Allowing
patents to methods of medical treatment may stifle the sharing of information
between physicians, which may actually slow
down the rate of innovation. Doctors
and medical researchers may be unwilling to share information, because this may
jeopardise their
chances of getting a patent. Although it is a requirement of
the patents system that there be full disclosure of the invention, this
information cannot readily be used until the patent has
expired.
Option iii): Allow Patents for Methods of Medical Treatment,
but Exempt Medical Practitioners from Infringement
- The
only country that has adopted this approach is the United States. As noted
earlier, the United States Patents Act exempts medical
practitioners from
infringement proceedings if they infringe while performing an medical or
surgical procedure. The
provision of this exemption was in response to an attempt by an ophthalmic
surgeon who had taken out a patent to a particular method
of cataract surgery to
sue another surgeon for patent infringement.58
- The
possibility of exempting medical practitioners from infringement proceedings has
also been suggested in a recent decision of the
New Zealand Court of
Appeal59, where it was stated in paragraph 65:
Bearing in mind the rationale for the method of treatment
exception permitted under TRIPS, Art 27:3, - that there should be no
interference
with the medical practitioner’s diagnosis and treatment of
patients – perhaps the logical approach would be to permit
claims to
extend to the method of treatment using the compound or composition, but to
require from the patentee a disclaimer of any
right to sue the practitioner.
- Under
this option, patents for methods of medical treatment of humans could not be
enforced against medical practitioners. If the
patented method was a surgical
method, or some other therapy not directly involving the use of drugs, then this
could effectively
render the patent worthless if the method was one that only
medical practitioners were able to carry out.
- Where
the patented method primarily involves the use of pharmaceuticals, rather than a
surgical method, then the fact that the method
could not be enforced against
medical practitioners may not affect the rights of the patent owner very much.
Such methods would usually
be commercially exploited by the sale of packages
containing the drug or drugs involved in the method, together with instructions
for their use. Medical practitioners may be unwilling to take the time to buy
the pharmaceuticals separately for use in the method.
- Under
this option medical practitioners would not incur the extra costs of license
fees or patent litigation. If methods of treatment
that primarily involve the
use of drugs become patentable, however, then there could be an increase in the
cost of such treatments.
Other health workers, such as nurses, rescue or first
aid workers, or practitioners of alternative medicine could still be liable
for
infringement if they used patented methods of medical treatment without the
permission of the patent owner.
What Does the Medical Profession Think?
- The
views of the medical profession in New Zealand do not appear to have been
canvassed on this issue. The American Medical Association
(AMA) had this to say
on the subject on the subject:60
...medical process patents potentially threaten the integrity of
the medical profession.
58 Pallin v. Singer (36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1050
(1995))
59 Pharmaceutical Management Agency Limited vs. The
Commissioner of Patents and Others, CA56/99.
60 "Patents on Methods of Medical Treatment: Where Should the
Balance Lie?", New Zealand Intellectual Property Journal, Nov. 1996
The AMA expressed the view that the grant of patents for methods of medical
treatment could reduce the professionalism of physicians
who may put economic
goals above those of patient health.
- The
World Medical Association Association Statement on Medical Process
Patents61 included the statement:
the patenting of medical procedures poses serious risks to the
effective practice of medicine by potentially limiting the availability
of new
procedures to patients.
In light of this, it would be important to take account of the views of the New
Zealand medical profession before making any change
to New Zealand’s
current policy regarding patents for methods of medical treatment of humans.
If the Status Quo Is Retained, How Might It Be
Implemented?
- If
it is decided that methods of medical treatment should remain unpatentable in
New Zealand, it may be desirable to amend the Patents
Act so that these are
clearly excluded from patentability. This would result in certainty for patent
applicants and the Courts and
could significantly reduce future litigation on
the subject. To ensure this, any exclusion relating to medical treatment would
have
to clearly spell out what was meant by “method of medical treatment
of humans”. What sort of treatment methods would
be excluded? Such an
exclusion would have to comply with Article 27.3(a) of the TRIPS agreement.
Perhaps some or all wording in this
article could be adopted to provide for
this.
- Another
option would be to leave the current definition of invention in S2 of the
Patents Act 1953 unchanged and rely on past Court
decisions to maintain the ban.
That is, under this option there would be no specific exclusion for methods of
medical treatment.
There is a risk with this approach. A Court could decide that
because Parliament did not provide for a specific exclusion when it
had the
opportunity to do so, Parliament did not have any particular desire to maintain
the ban on patenting of methods of medical
treatment of humans. The result would
be that IPONZ would be required to grant patents for such methods. As discussed
previously,
this is essentially what happened in
Australia.
Methods of Medical Treatment of Animals
- The
TRIPS agreement allows parties to exclude methods of medical treatment of
animals from patent protection. Such methods are currently
patentable in New
Zealand. The EPC contains an exclusion for these methods. Is there a case for
New Zealand to exclude methods of
medical treatment of animals from
patentability?
Questions
- Should
methods of medical treatment of humans remain unpatentable in New Zealand? If
not, why not?
61 Adopted by the 51st World Medical Assembly Tel
Aviv, Israel, October 1999, http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17-777_e.html.
If methods of medical treatment were to become patentable in New Zealand, what
benefits would there be for New Zealand? What would
be the costs?
- If
methods of medical treatment were to become patentable in New Zealand, should
such patents be enforceable against medical practitioners?
- If
methods of medical treatment of humans were to remain unpatentable, should they
be the subject of a specific exclusion the Patents
Act? If not, why
not?
- If
the Patents Act were to contain a specific exclusion for methods of medical
treatment of humans, what treatments should be excluded?
Should there be a
definition of “medical treatment of humans” in the Patents Act, or
should the interpretation of this
term be left to the
courts?
- The
TRIPS agreement also allows for methods of medical treatment of animals to be
excluded from patentability. These methods are currently
patentable in New
Zealand. Should such methods be excluded from patentability? If so, why?
8. Stringency Test for Patentability
Introduction
- The
New Zealand Patents Act 1953 is very similar to the United Kingdom Patents Act
1949 and the Australian Patents Act 1952. The United
Kingdom Courts have
ruled62 that the role of the Patent Office in administering the
Patents Act 1949 is not to finally decide whether an invention is patentable,
but only to refuse to allow an application to proceed which on no reasonable
view could be said to be eligible for a patent. It was
ruled that it was up to
the High Court to determine actual patentability.
- The
High Court of Australia held that, under the Patents Act 1952, the grant of a
patent should only be refused if it was practically
certain that if a patent was
granted it would be held to be invalid.63 If there is any dispute,
the applicant must be given the benefit of the doubt. The justification for this
policy is that the Patent
Office would not, at the examination stage, have the
benefit of the arguments of counsel and oral evidence.
- The
New Zealand courts have followed these United Kingdom and Australian decisions.
As a consequence, IPONZ has also followed these
rulings, and is required to give
the applicant the benefit of the doubt when deciding whether or not to grant a
patent.
Why Is This an Issue?
- If
IPONZ can only refuse to grant a patent when it is “practically
certain” that any patent granted would be held by a
Court to be invalid,
it is possible that patents which might be likely (but not almost certain) to be
held invalid will be granted.
- Invalid
patents cannot be enforced: that is, they would held to be invalid in
infringement or revocation proceedings. However, the
outcome of litigation,
particularly patent litigation that can involve complex technical matters, is
always uncertain. Any party
challenging the validity of a patent would have to
meet the ongoing costs of litigation, and if the challenge were unsuccessful the
challenger might have to meet the patent owner’s costs as well. If an
unsuccessful challenger was also found to be infringing
the patent, the
challenger might be liable for damages. Under these circumstances, many patents
that are likely to be held to be
invalid might never be
challenged.
- The
grant of a patent provides the patent owner with an exclusive right to exploit
the patented invention. That is, the patent owner
has a form of monopoly until
the patent expires. If a patent is granted that the courts would find to be
invalid, the monopoly rights
enjoyed by the patent owner are greater than the
owner is entitled to. These greater rights have the potential to restrict
competition
and raise prices to consumers, and may restrict the activities of
local businesses who lack the resources to challenge the validity
of the patent.
The fact that most New Zealand patents are granted to foreign owners means
that
62 Swift & Co’s Application [1962]
RPC 37 at 46.
63 Microcell Ltd and Others’ Application [1977] FSR
163 at 172.
most of the financial benefits of these patents will flow out of New Zealand.
The persistence of these invalid patents might impose
a significant economic
cost on New Zealand.
Situation in Other Countries
- The
Australian courts have continued to apply the precedents discussed earlier under
Australian Patents Act 1990. Consequently, IPAustralia is required to give
applicants the benefit of the doubt when deciding whether or not to grant a
patent.
- In
a recent review of the Australian Patents Act 1990, the Australian Intellectual
Property and Competition Review Committee (IPCR)64 recommended
changing the Patents Act 1990 to require a “balance of
probabilities” approach to be used during examination, rather than
conferring the “benefit
of the doubt” to the applicant as at
present. This recommendation has been adopted by the Australian Government, and
a bill
to appropriately amend the Patents Act 1990 was introduced to the Federal
Parliament.65 This bill was subsequently passed on 27 September 2001
as the Patents Amendment Act 2001.
- This
is essentially the same approach now used in the United Kingdom under the
Patents Act 1977. Under this Act, the onus is upon
applicants to show that their
applications meet the legislative requirements when faced with a reasonable
challenge. Effectively,
objections are made or maintained according to whether,
on the balance of probabilities, they are
appropriate.66
Should the Stringency Tests for Granting a New Zealand Patent
Be Changed?
- While
the recommendation to change the stringency test in Australia was made in the
light of what was considered to be an overly liberal
application of the
“benefit of the doubt” criterion by IPAustralia, it may be worth
considering this change in New Zealand.
This would increase the likelihood that
granted patents are valid, and would harmonise New Zealand law with that of
Australia. This
would also bring New Zealand practice into line with practice in
other countries.
- The
review of the Australian Act, referred to above commented:
While there may be some increase in costs due to more protracted
arguments between applicants and examiners, these are likely to be
small and to
be reduced as each side becomes more familiar with the new stringency of
testing. The benefits in terms of improved
certainty and validity are likely to
be considerable.
64 The section of the report dealing with the patent
system can be found at: http://www.ipcr.gov.au/ipcr/finalreport1dec/patentdesigns3.htm
65 Patents Amendment Bill 2001. Details can be found
at IPAustralia’s website, www.ipaustralia.gov.au.
66 Advisory Council on Industrial Property (Australia) Review
of Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
1999, p. 15
- Should
consideration be given to changing the stringency test for deciding whether or
not to grant a patent from the present “benefit
of the doubt” to a
“balance of probabilities” test? If such a test were to be adopted,
then there would be increased
certainty for both patent owners and third
parties, as there would be a greater certainty that granted patents would be
held to be
valid by the Courts. Given that such a test is being adopted in
Australia, it may be desirable to adopt it in New Zealand, so as
to provide
greater certainty for businesses operating in both
countries.
Questions
- Is
the stringency test for granting a patent in New Zealand too liberal? If so,
why? If not, why not?
- If
the test is too liberal, what test should be adopted?
- If
a more restrictive test were to be adopted, would there be any advantages or
disadvantages other than those identified above?
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZAHGovDP/2002/5.html