Synthetic Genome Patent Enforcement Under International Biotech Treaties
1. Overview: Synthetic Genome Patents and International Treaties
A synthetic genome is a genome created artificially in a laboratory, rather than naturally occurring. The legal protection of these genomes intersects patent law and international biotechnology treaties.
Key international treaties relevant include:
TRIPS Agreement (1994) – Part of the WTO agreements. Requires patents to be available for inventions in all fields of technology, including biotechnology, if they meet criteria of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) – Focuses on the sovereign rights of nations over their genetic resources. This can influence synthetic genome patenting when using genetic material from a country.
Nagoya Protocol (2010) – A supplementary agreement to CBD, regulating access to genetic resources and fair benefit-sharing.
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT, 1970) – Allows filing patents internationally for inventions, including synthetic biology.
Enforcement challenges arise due to:
Novelty and inventive step: How different is a synthetic genome from natural sequences?
Moral and ethical concerns: Some countries exclude patenting life forms.
International conflict: Cross-border use of genetic material may violate CBD/Nagoya rules.
2. Case Laws on Synthetic Genome Patents
Here, I provide six key cases, explaining the facts, legal issues, and outcomes.
Case 1: Myriad Genetics, Inc. v. Association for Molecular Pathology (2013, USA)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Can isolated human genes be patented?
Facts: Myriad Genetics patented BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Plaintiffs argued isolated genes are naturally occurring and cannot be patented.
Decision: The Court ruled naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, but synthetic DNA (cDNA) can be patented because it is not naturally occurring.
Significance:
Synthetic genome elements like cDNA fall under patentable subject matter.
Establishes distinction between natural and artificially created genetic material.
Case 2: Harvard College v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada, 2002)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Issue: Patentability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
Facts: Harvard College held patents on genetically modified mice (Oncomouse). The Canadian Patent Office initially rejected the patents.
Decision: Supreme Court of Canada upheld the patentability of GMOs but limited the scope, emphasizing ethical considerations and usefulness in research.
Significance:
Extends to synthetic genomes or artificially modified life forms.
Shows international differences: U.S. allows broader scope, Canada restricts patenting based on ethical grounds.
Case 3: Monsanto v. Schmeiser (2004, Canada)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Issue: Enforcement of biotech patents in agriculture
Facts: Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, unknowingly grew genetically modified (GM) canola containing Monsanto’s patented gene. Monsanto sued for patent infringement.
Decision: The court ruled Monsanto’s patent rights were enforceable, even if the GM trait spread naturally, as the farmer benefitted commercially.
Significance:
Important precedent for enforcing synthetic genome patents.
Demonstrates that use of patented genetic material without consent is infringement, even accidentally.
Case 4: J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001, USA)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Can plants with genetically modified traits be patented under general utility patent laws?
Facts: Dispute over whether utility patents apply to plants, or if only plant patents are allowed.
Decision: The Court ruled plants with genetically engineered traits can be patented under utility patent law, not just under plant patent law.
Significance:
Strengthened the legal basis for synthetic genomes in plant biotechnology.
Reinforces that engineered biological material is patentable under TRIPS.
Case 5: Eli Lilly & Co. v. Canada (Canadian Federal Court, 2017)
Issue: Scope of biotech patent claims
Facts: Eli Lilly filed patents for genetically engineered proteins. Canada rejected some claims as “obvious.”
Decision: Court partially invalidated patents for lack of inventive step.
Significance:
Highlights the difficulty of enforcing synthetic genome patents if the invention is not sufficiently inventive.
Shows international standard for inventive step under TRIPS is crucial.
Case 6: Greenpeace & Others vs. Synthetic Genomics, Inc. (Ongoing, EU)
Court: European Patent Office opposition proceedings
Issue: Patents on synthetic viruses for biofuel production
Facts: Synthetic Genomics claimed patents on modified algae genomes. Greenpeace challenged based on environmental and ethical concerns.
Decision: Pending, but European Patent Office generally applies moral exclusion clauses (European Patent Convention Art. 53).
Significance:
Reflects the EU’s cautious stance on patenting life forms.
Illustrates the tension between innovation and ethics in synthetic genome enforcement.
3. Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Natural vs Synthetic Distinction – Natural genes are usually non-patentable; synthetic cDNA or modified genomes are patentable.
Inventive Step & Industrial Applicability – Required under TRIPS; simply discovering or isolating a genome is insufficient.
Ethical and Moral Considerations – Especially in Canada and the EU; patents may be limited if contrary to public order or morality.
Enforcement Across Borders – Accidental infringement (like Monsanto v. Schmeiser) can still lead to liability.
Access and Benefit-Sharing Compliance – Under CBD/Nagoya, using genetic material from another country may require consent, or patents may face enforcement challenges internationally.
4. Conclusion
Synthetic genome patents are legally recognized if the genome is man-made or engineered, but enforcement depends heavily on:
Jurisdictional laws (U.S. vs Canada vs EU)
TRIPS compliance (novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability)
Ethical constraints
Access and benefit-sharing obligations under CBD/Nagoya
The above cases illustrate how courts balance innovation incentives with moral, ethical, and sovereignty concerns, providing a practical guide for biotech patent enforcement.
RELATED Blog
comments