SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Ten Questions About Internet Governance

On April 23 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,” also known as “NETmundial” in an allusion to the global football event that will occur later in that country, will be convened. Juan Alfonso Fernández González of the Cuban Communications Ministry and a veteran of the UN internet governance meetings, raises 10 questions that need to be answered at NETmundial.


Latest Comments
  • Justice Roberts seems to think that adjusting ones... »
  • These obscured negotiations appear to this reader ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Monsanto, Myriad: Two US Legal Cases Shaking Biotech Industries

    Published on 18 February 2013 @ 12:15 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The biotechnology industry has growing concerns over decisions to be taken this year by the United States Supreme Court in two cases involving the patenting of human genes and the exhaustion of patent rights in the context of easily reproducible products. Several areas of biotechnology could be affected by unfavourable decisions, provoking legal uncertainty and discouraging innovation, industry representatives said in a recent telephone conference. In the meantime, civil society stands fast in opposition.

    On 14 February, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) organised a telephone conference to present “the broad-reaching impacts and implications of these two very different cases, each of which presents distinct questions of patent law that could affect the future of innovation in biotechnology.”

    The two cases are Bowman v. Monsanto Co, and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (IPW, US Policy, 11 January 2013).

    Bowman Case

    The first case involves Vernon Bowman, a 75-year old farmer from Indiana. He was sued by Monsanto for infringing the company’s patents by planting a second generation of patented genetically-modified soybean plants. In their amicus curiae brief, Bowman’s lawyers explained that the farmer, in 2007, said  he bought soybeans from an elevator for planting and he did not know what variety  he had planted. The patent question is whether or not Monsanto’s patent rights in the seeds were exhausted after Bowman purchased them.

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in this case on 19 February.

    According to Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel for intellectual property at BIO, biotech companies are not concerned about what Bowman did but about the implications the case could have. The question is about biotech products is that they are easily replicable but difficult to create, he said.

    This question applies to other biotech companies, not just the seed business, he said, such as live vaccines, synthetic cell lines, and stem cells, because those products are easily replicable. Small companies would particularly be exposed, he said. Bringing a new product to market entails a 5- to 10-year endeavour and millions of dollars. Legal uncertainty would raise “huge problems” for them to find capital and partners, Sauer said.

    Agriculture is at the cutting edge of technology, said Gary Baise, counsel of record for the American Soybean Association, which filed an amicus curiae brief[pdf], along with some other national associations, such as corn, wheat and sugarbeet, asking that the judgment of the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit be upheld. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Monsanto.

    “Plant biotechnology is the future of American agriculture,” the amicus curiae brief said. IP is key to the industry and has generated major advances, said Baise, contributing to cost reduction, but also helping protect the environment, and reducing pollution and climate change.

    He said farmers were prepared to pay more for patented seeds as since the introduction of biotechnology, the productivity “has risen enormously,” and farmland value has “skyrocketed in the US.”

    Scott McBride, counsel of record for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, who submitted an amicus curiae brief [pdf] said the case had particular importance with regards to technology transfer, as a reversal of the previous judgment could impact the benefits to the public provided by the Bayh-Dole Act.

    The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allowed universities conducting research with government funding to obtain specific rights in the inventions coming out of this research, and encouraged technology transfer from universities.

    “Reversal in this case would weaken patent rights for artificial, progenitive [able to reproduce itself] technologies and upset the flourishing innovation system created by US patent law through the Bayh-Dole Act and technology transfer organisations,” says the amicus curiae brief. The fact that the Supreme Court took the case surprised many in the industry, he said.

    Christopher Holman, from the University of Missouri, drew an analogy between the case and copyright law as applied to software and digital content. Unlike most inventions, Monsanto seeds are susceptible to duplication, he said, and the problem is that a small number of originals can provide an unlimited number of perfect copies, the same as for encoded music, he added.

    Myriad Case: Broad Impact Feared by Industry

    The other case is Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics in which the Supreme Court has to decide on the patentability of human genes (IPW, US Policy, 21 December 2012).

    According to Sauer, the Myriad case is about a much broader proposition on the patentability of products modelled after products that can be found in nature, such as antibiotics, purified proteins, flavouring, fragrances, dyes, and enzymes.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed the lawsuit with the Public Patent Foundation has “deliberately chosen a legal theory that will have the broadest possible impact on the patent system as a whole,” he said. They are urging a legal theory that would strike down a large number of patents that are under the same legal theory than Myriad, he added. Thousands of patents are involved, he said, and BIO members are very concerned about the legal theory that is at play.

    According to Holman, one of the major problems is the scope of the patent claim. The Myriad case is going to the Supreme Court, but “the lower courts dealing with this case have not done the job of figuring out what the claim actually covers,” he said. This has led to a lot of confusion and misinformation, as “there is some unwarranted assumption that any sort of gene patent covers any sort of use, or research, which is not the case at all,” he added.

    The Supreme Court is scheduled [pdf] to hear oral arguments in the case on 15 April.

    Civil Society Different Stand on Both Cases

    On the Bowman case, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) said in its amicus curiae brief that the Court of Appeal’s decision created an exemption from patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies that departs from the established law and sound patent policy.

    “The doctrine of exhaustion provides a necessary limit on the ability of patentees to pervert markets beyond the scope of their patents. Sophisticated patent owners like Monsanto can be expected to take limits on their patent rights, including exhaustion, into account when designing their business models,” they said in their brief.

    In its amicus curiae brief [pdf], Knowledge Ecology International said the patent exhaustion doctrine has existed in the US for over 150 years. An exception for self-replicating technologies “creating inexhaustible patent rights, will harm downstream users who may have no notice that they are using patented technology,” they said.

    In the Myriad case, KEI said in its amicus curiae brief [pdf] that “By design, gene patents are used to block secondary testing as well as research and development on diseases or diagnostics related to the patented sequences.”

    “The negative impact of patents has been justified on the grounds that they are the only instrument that can adequately protect investments in research and development for new medical technologies. This assumption is false and a wide range of public policy instruments … are either currently in use, or have been proposed, to stimulate research and development for new medical products,” they said.

    Agrichemical Companies Going after Farmers, Report Says

    In the meantime, the Center for Food Safety and Save Our Seeds (SOS) on 12 February issued a report titled “Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers” [pdf]. The report says that, “Agrichemical companies devote “significant resources toward investigating and prosecuting farmers for alleged seed patent violations.” Their investigations and lawsuits, the report says, “reflect a David versus Goliath scenario” as most farmers do not have the means to get legal representation and are “often forced to accept confidential out-of-court settlements.”

    As of December 2012, Monsanto had filed 142 alleged seed patent infringement lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in 27 US states, the two non-governmental organisations said, alleging that sums awarded to Monsanto in 72 recorded judgments exceed US$ 23 million.

    Monsanto is not alone is that fight. The report says DuPont “hired at least 45 farm investigators in 2012 to examine planting and purchasing records of Canadian farmers and to take samples from their fields to send to DuPont for genetic analysis.”

    “USDA data show that since the introduction of GE [genetically engineered] seed, the average cost of soybean seed to plant one acre has risen by a dramatic 325 percent,” with similar trends for corn and cotton seeds. The report also says that agronomists around the world are worried about a “growing epidemic of weeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate.”

    According to the report, “To exert greater control over their patented material, seed companies rely on contracts with farmers known as technology use agreements. These agreements include a variety of provisions that require company access to farmers’ records, dictate farming practices, and open the door for on-site investigations.

    The ongoing case of Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association v. Monsanto filed by PUBPAT, about farmers concerned about being sued because of genetically modified organisms contamination of their fields, had been dismissed in February 2012, following a motion to dismiss filed by Monsanto. The case has been taken to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which scheduled oral arguments to be heard on 10 January 2013. The transcript of the oral arguments is here.

    A decision is expected in spring of 2013 (IPW, IP Law, 30 March 2011).

    All amicus curiae briefs in the Bowman v. Monsanto case and the amicus curiae briefs in the Myriad case can be found on the Supreme Court of the US blog, Scotusblog.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Monsanto v. Bowman: Stocktaking After Supreme Court Hearings | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] The biotech industry is concerned about a weakening of IP protection if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the farmer (IPW, US Policy, 18 February 2013). [...]

    2. mike kelley says:

      If public funds (derived from federal grants) are used to derive data that leads directly to scientific and/or engineering innovation, is there not also a consideration for public investment in such innovation? Where is the return to that collective investment? Especially where such interest may be attached directly to the health and welfare of citizens affected? Where can private profit be insured at the expense of the public welfare at large, when public investment is involved? I make the case that this amounts to theft with regard to publicly invested funds. Law may state whatever legislated interest may determine, but public welfare is insured by the constitution of the United States and any law framed against and contrary to that guarantee should not be enforced or allowed to stand.

    3. Top IP-Watch Stories Of 2013: India, Marrakesh Treaty, Seed/Gene Patents, WIPO Election | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      […] Monsanto, Myriad: Two US Legal Cases Shaking Biotech Industries http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/02/18/monsanto-myriad-two-us-legal-cases-shaking-biotechnology-industri… […]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 27.153.237.59