Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T01:22:32.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patents on Human Gene Sequences in Germany: On Bad Lawmaking and Ways to Deal With It

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christoph Ann

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Whether patents should be granted on human genes or gene sequences is highly controversial, both ethically and politically; not only in Germany but throughout Europe and in most parts of the world. Proof of this has been the attention created by US biotechnology company Myriad Genetics, which, in 2001, obtained European patents for human gene sequences indicating an increased risk of certain types of cancer. In Germany the Bundestag has recently addressed the issue: the core of a newly introduced provision of the German Patent Statute (PatG) is Paragraph 1a Sec. 4 PatG, which limits the scope of patent protection available for human gene sequences or parts thereof. If the subject of an invention is a human gene sequence, Paragraph 1a Sec. 4 PatG requires disclosure of not only the sequence but also at least one application. Without such disclosure a human gene sequence is not patentable under German Patent Law. This is remarkable, because under the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, the so-called Biotechnology Directive of 1998, a piece of European Union legislation, the situation is different.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , 01 March 2006 , pp. 279 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Clark, Jeanne et al., Patent Pools: A Solution to the Problem of Access in Biotechnology Patents?, United States Patent and Tradmark Office, Dec. 5, 2000, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/ opla/patentpool.pdf; David J. Faye, Bioprospecting, Genetic Patenting and Indigenous Populations – Challenges under a Restructured Information Commons, 7 J. World Int'l. Prop. 401 (2004); Atina Krajewska, Fundamental Rights Concerning Biomedicine in the Constitutional Treaty and Their Effect on the Diverse Legal Systems of Member States, 6 German L. J. 1693 (2005), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=666; Franklin Strier, Stemming the Gold Rush: Public Policy Alternatives to Gene Patenting, 110 Bus. & Soc. Rev. 47 (2005); Emma Toumi, In Defence of Gene Patents, 9 J. Comm. Biotech. 135 (2003); Human Genome Organisation (HUGO), Statement on Patenting of DNA Sequences, April 2000, http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/hugo/patent2000.html; German National Ethics Council, The Patenting of Biotechnological Inventions Involving the Use of Biological Material of Human Origin, Opinion of Oct. 6, 2004, http://www.nationalerethikrat.de/_english/publications/opinions.html.Google Scholar

2 Myriad Genetics owns these patents in Canada, the United States and various other countries. It also owns several gene-based screening tests for cancer. In 2001 the European Patent Office (EPO) granted Myriad Genetics two European patents on a gene BRCA1. European opponents have been fighting these patents since 2001 on grounds that its claims were to broad in scope. Another cause of controversy is the company's exclusive licensing policy in Europe. This policy and the risk of being sued for infringement allegedly prevented other researchers in Europe from carrying out their own tests. In May 2004 the first BRCA1 patent (EP 699754) was revoked completely for lack of novelty under European patent law. Following two public hearings in January 2005, the of the EPO’ Opposition Division rejected some elements of the claims of the second BRCA1 patent (EP 705903). The patent could, however, be maintained, had its claims been amended. See Stéphanie Bodoni, EPO Revokes Cancer Test Patent, 140 Managing Intell. Prop. 6 (2004); Press release, European Patent Office, “Myriad/Breast” Cancer Patent Revoked After Public Hearing, (May 18, 2004) available at http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2004_05_18_e.htm; Press release, European Patent Office, (Jan. 25, 2005) available at http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2005_01_25_e.htm.Google Scholar

3 Council Directive 1998/44, 1998 O.J. (L 213) 13 (EC), available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1998/l_213/l_21319980730en00130021.pdf (hereinafter Biotechnology Directive).Google Scholar

4 At present EU member states are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finnland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom, but not Switzerland.Google Scholar

5 See Motion of Fractions of Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green Party (Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen) Für ein modernes Biopatentrecht (For a Modern Biopatent Law) of March 10, 2004, BTDrucks 15/2657, available at http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/15/026/1502657.pdf; Recommendation and Report of the Bundestags Judicial Committee of Dec. 01, 2004, BTDrucks 15/4417, available at http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/15/044/1504417.pdf; BT-Plenary Protocol 13678 D, BTDrucks 15/146, available at http://dip.bundestag.de/btp/15/15146.pdf.Google Scholar

6 See Egerer, Peter, Patentschutz für Erfindungen auf dem Gebiet der Biotechnologie – Stoffschutz für Gene?, in Festschrift für Reimar König zum 70 Geburtstag 109 (Christoph Ann et. al. 2003); Uta Köster, Absoluter oder auf die Funktion eingeschränkter Stoffschutz im Rahmen von “Biotech”-Erfindungen, insbesondere bei Gen-Patente?, Zeitschrift für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) 833 (2002); Hans-Georg Landfermann, Umsetzungsspielräume bei der Biopatent-Richtlinie, in Festschrift für Winfried Tilmann zum 65 Geburtstag 527 (Ehrard Keller et al. eds., 2003); Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Patente auf Leben – Ist das Patentrecht blind für ethische Zusammenhänge?, in Festschrift für Reimar König zum 70. Geburtstag 435 (Christoph Ann et. al. eds., 2003); Nikolaus Kunczik, The German Way of Dealing with “The Tragedy of the Anticommons” - Purpose-Bound Protection for Product Patents on Genetic Information in Germany, 2 J. of Int'l Biotech. L. 194, 197 (2005), abstract available at http://www.extenza-eps.com/WDG/doi/abs/10.1515/jibl.2005.2.5.194.Google Scholar

7 See National German Ethics Council, The Patenting of Biotechnological Inventions Involving the Use of Biological Material of Human Origin, Opinion 2005, available at http://www.ethikrat.org/_english/publications/Opinion_patenting-of-biotechnological-inventions.pdf.Google Scholar

8 See BTDrucks 14/5642, available at http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/056/1405642.pdf.Google Scholar

9 Case C-126/03, Comm'n of the European Communities v. F.R.G. 2004 E.C.R. I-11197, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:6:0018:0018:EN:PDF.Google Scholar

10 Statute Implementing the European Council's Biotechnology Directive, Jan. 21, 2005, BGBl. I at 146, available at http://www.bgblportal.de/BGBL/bgbl1f/bgbl105s0146.pdf.Google Scholar

11 German Patent Statute, Dec. 16, 1980, BGBl. I at 1 (F.R.G.) (for an English translation of modest quality www.ip-firm.de/patentact.pdf).Google Scholar

12 Convention on the Grant of European Patents, Oct. 5, 1973, available at http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ma1.html (last amended on December 10, 1998) (hereinafter EPC).Google Scholar

13 Contracting states of the EPC are at present: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finnland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom; Extension states, i.e. states to which EPO-patents can be extended, are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro.Google Scholar

14 Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents Oct. 1973, available at http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ma2.html#REG (last amended by Decision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation Dec. 9, 2004) (hereinafter EPC-IR).Google Scholar

15 See German Patent Statute, supra note 11.Google Scholar

16 See Biotechnology Directive, supra note 3, at considerations 5, 6, 7.Google Scholar

17 See Biotechnology Directive, supra note 3, at consideration 8.Google Scholar

18 Proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Bioltechnological Inventions, COM(1988) 486 final (Oct. 17, 1988), 1989 O.J. (C 10) 3.Google Scholar

19 Proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Bioltechnological Inventions, COM (1995) 661 final (Oct. 8, 1996), 1996 O.J. (C 296) 4.Google Scholar

20 Council Directive 98/44, 1998 O.J. (L 213) 13, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1998/l_213/l_21319980730en00130021.pdf.Google Scholar

21 See Case C-377/98: The Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2001 E.C.R. I-7079, available at http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Rechercher&alldocs=alldocs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&d ocjo=docjo&numaff=C-377/98&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100; see also C-377/98R Order of the President of the Court in The Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council of the European union, 2000 E.C.R. I-06229, available at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc =61998O0377#MO (on plaintiff's application for interim measures to suspend the operation of Directive 98/44/EC); see also Malcom MacLaren, Patently Unsatisfactory?: Community Legislative Competence and the ECJ Biotech Decision, 2 German .L.J. 18 (2001), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=114; see also Tade Matthias Spranger, Indigene Völker, “Biopiraterie” und internationales Patentrecht, 103 Zeitschrift für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) 89 (2001).Google Scholar

22 See EPC-IR, supra note 14.Google Scholar

23 See EPC, supra note 12, at Art. 172.Google Scholar

24 EPC, supra note 12, at Art. 33 Sec. 1, Art. 35 Sec. 2. Note that some criticize this as an approach to circumvent regulations on EPC-revisions; see Rudolf Kraßer, Patentrecht 90 (5th ed. 2004).Google Scholar

25 See Steven Hildebrand, Patenting of Human Genes in Europe; Prerequisites and Consequences, http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=ndsip (for the EPO's grant policy).Google Scholar

26 Dependent patents are patents that cannot be used without simultaneously using one or more older patents and that thus can be used only with the respective older patent holder's consent.Google Scholar

27 See Comm'n of European Communities v. F.R.G., supra note 9.Google Scholar

28 See Recommendation and Report by the Bundestag's Judicial Committee, supra note 5.Google Scholar

29 See supra note 5.Google Scholar

30 The Commission sees no reason to change the Directive in this regard; see Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Development and Implications of Patent Law in the Field of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, at 5, COM (2005) 312 final (July 14, 2005), available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0312en01.pdf.Google Scholar

31 See Zimmer, Franz Josef & Sethmann, Svenja, Act Implementing the Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions in Germany (BioPatG), 24 Biotech. L. Rep. 561, 561-566 (2005), available at http://www.grunecker.de/download/publications/biorili.pdf, p. 7.Google Scholar

32 See BT-Plenary Protocol, supra note 5.Google Scholar

33 See BT-Plenary Protocol, supra note 5, at enclosures 6, 8.Google Scholar

34 See Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, http://www.ip4all.ch/E/jurinfo/j100.shtm#a03 (last visited Feb. 26, 2006) (with links to documentation on the Swiss Patent Law Revision in all three Swiss official languages: German, French, and Italian).Google Scholar

35 See Draft for a Revision of the Swiss Patent Statute, Art. 8c, available at http://www.ip4all.ch/E/jurinfo/j100.shtm#a03.Google Scholar