1 / 26

Case 428/08 Monsanto v Cefetra e.a THE FUTURE OF BIOTECH PATENT PROTECTION IN EUROPE

Case 428/08 Monsanto v Cefetra e.a THE FUTURE OF BIOTECH PATENT PROTECTION IN EUROPE. What every biotech patent practitioner should know John J. Allen. CONTENTS. Facts Legal framework Questions referred to the Court of Justice Answers Implications. FACTS European patent EP 0 546 090.

zaina
Download Presentation

Case 428/08 Monsanto v Cefetra e.a THE FUTURE OF BIOTECH PATENT PROTECTION IN EUROPE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case 428/08 Monsanto v Cefetrae.aTHE FUTURE OF BIOTECH PATENT PROTECTION IN EUROPE What every biotech patent practitioner should know John J. Allen

  2. CONTENTS • Facts • Legal framework • Questions referred to the Court of Justice • Answers • Implications

  3. FACTSEuropean patent EP 0 546 090 Glyphosate tolerant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthases • Keywords: herbicide resistance; Roundup Ready • Absence of patent protection in Argentina • Soy meal: crushed, dried and toasted: not “directly obtained” from patented method (art 64EPC) • Imports into European Union • 30.6 million tons in 2008[1] • 22 million tons from outside EU • 56% originates form Argentina • Complete patented molecules/sequences present in soy meal (?) [1]Source: Factsheet Soy 2009, Product Board MVO

  4. FACTS Claims in dispute: Claims 1-5: isolated DNA sequence District Court: no infringement since the DNA is incorporated in the soy meal: "there is no isolated DNA" Claims 14, 17-19 and 28: method claims (producing plants, controlling weeds): District Court: soy meal not directly obtained from these methods Claims 6-8, 11-13: DNA sequences and DNA molecules Key question: is absolute product protection under national law consistent with the European Biotechnology Directive?

  5. LEGAL FRAMEWORK • WTO, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") • European law: Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13) (‘the Biotech Directive’) • Dutch Patent Act 1995 • European exhaustion doctrine (not only Argentinean imports!) • Anti Piracy Regulation 1383/2003 (border measures)

  6. Legal framework (I): TRIPS Article 27(1) TRIPS (“patentable subject matter”): Patents are to 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; patents are to 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.

  7. Legal framework (I): TRIPS Article 30 TRIPS (‘Exceptions to Rights Conferred’) Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.

  8. Legal framework (II): BIOTECH DIRECTIVE PREAMBLE: • Recital 23: a mere DNA sequence without indication of a function does not contain any technical information and is therefore not a patentable invention. • Recital 24: in order to comply with the industrial application criterion it is necessary in cases where a sequence or partial sequence of a gene is used to produce a protein or part of a protein, to specify which protein or part of a protein is produced or what function it performs. See also Article 5(3) of the Directive: the industrial application of a sequence or a partial sequence of gene is to be disclosed in the patent application.

  9. Legal framework (II): BIOTECH DIRECTIVE Article 1: 1. Member States shall protect biotechnological inventions under national patent law. They shall, if necessary, adjust their national patent law to take account of the provisions of this Directive. 2. This Directive shall be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States pursuant to international agreements, and in particular the TRIPs Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  10. Legal framework (II): BIOTECH DIRECTIVE Article 3: • For the purposes of this Directive, inventions which are new, which involve an inventive step and which are susceptible of industrial application shall be patentable even if they concern a product consisting of or containing biological material or a process by means of which biological material is produced, processed or used. • Biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process may be the subject of an invention even if it previously occurred in nature.

  11. Legal framework (II): BIOTECH DIRECTIVE Article 9: Scope of protection: ‘The protection conferred by a patent on a product containing or consisting of genetic information shall extend to all material … in which the product is incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function

  12. Legal framework (III): DUTCH PATENT ACT Article 53 Dutch Patent Act: 1. A patent shall give the patent holder … the exclusive right: (a)       to manufacture the patented product in or for its business, to use it, to bring it into circulation or to sell it on, to hire it out, to deliver it or otherwise trade in it, or to offer it, to import it or to have it in stock for any of those purposes; (b)      to apply the patented process in or for its business, or to use, to bring into circulation or to sell on, to hire out or deliver the product derived directly from the application of that process, or otherwise to trade in that product, or to offer it, to import it or have it in stock for any of those purposes.’ 2. The exclusive right is determined by the claims of the patent, whilst the description and the drawings shall serve to explain those claims. (…)

  13. Legal framework (III): DUTCH PATENT ACT Article 53a Dutch Patent Act: (…) • In respect of a patent on a product containing or consisting of genetic information, the exclusive right shall extend to all material in which the product is incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function …’.

  14. Questions referred to the Court of Justice (1) Must Article 9 of Directive 98/44 … be interpreted as meaning that the protection provided under that provision can be invoked even in a situation such as that in the present proceedings, in which the product (the DNA sequence) forms part of a material imported into the European Union (soy meal) and does not perform its function at the time of the alleged infringement, but has indeed performed its function (in the soy plant) or would possibly again be able to perform its function after it has been isolated from that material and inserted into the cell of an organism?

  15. Questions referred to the Court of Justice (2)  Proceeding on the basis that the DNA sequence described in claim 6 of patent No EP 0 546 090 is present in the soy meal imported into the Community by Cefetra and [Toepfer], and that the DNA is incorporated in the soy meal for the purposes of Article 9 of [the Directive] and that it does not perform its function therein: does the protection of a patent on biological material as provided for under [the Directive], in particular under Article 9 thereof, preclude the national patent legislation from offering (in parallel) absolute protection to the product (the DNA) as such, regardless of whether that DNA performs its function, and must the protection as provided under Article 9 of [the Directive] therefore be deemed to be exhaustive in the situation referred to in that provision, in which the product consists in genetic information or contains such information, and the product is incorporated in material which contains the genetic information?

  16. Questions referred to the Court of Justice (3) Does it make any difference, for the purpose of answering the previous question, that patent No EP 0 546 090 was applied for and granted (on 19 June 1996) prior to the adoption of [the Directive] and that such absolute product protection was granted under national patent legislation prior to the adoption of that directive? (4) Is it possible, in answering the previous questions, to take into consideration the TRIPS Agreement, in particular Articles 27 and 30 thereof?’

  17. QUESTIONS (SHORT FORM): • What's with this function business: past/present/future? • Absolute product protection for DNA patents under national law possible in view of Article 9 Biotech Directive? • What about patents granted prior to the Biotech Directive? 4. Does TRIPS matter?

  18. Monsanto re Question 1: • the genetic information performs its function of carrying information. • The genetic information has performed its function at growth • The DNA can again be isolated and used, can perform its function

  19. ANSWERS: Question 1: Article 9 says performs its function, so that must mean something (par. 34) • present tense (par. 35) “which’ implies that the function is being performed at the present time and in the actual material in which the DNA sequence containing the genetic information is found.” • function is protection against herbicide at growth stages of the plant (par. 36), • no relevant function in soy meal (par. 37): residual presence in dead material "It follows from the foregoing that the protection provided for in Article 9 of the Directive is not available when the genetic information has ceased to perform the function it performed in the initial material from which the material in question is derived."

  20. Monsanto’ s second line of defense • the claims concern DNA sequence as such. • Protection under national patent law, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Directive • Article 9 of the Directive relates solely to an extension of such protection to other material in which the patented product is incorporated. "Monsanto does not need Article 9 of the Directive."

  21. Court of Justice rejects this view: • recital 23 states that ‘a mere DNA sequence without indication of a function does not contain any technical information and is therefore not a patentable invention’. • The import of recitals 23 and 24 in the preamble to, and Article 5(3) of the Directive is that a DNA sequence does not enjoy any protection under patent law when the function performed by that sequence is not specified. • Since the Directive thus makes the patentability of a DNA sequence subject to indication of the function it performs, it must be regarded as not according any protection to a patented DNA sequence which is not able to perform the specific function for which it was patented. Monsanto's interpretation would deprive Article 9 of its effectiveness 

  22. And concludes: Article 9 • Provides a EU wide harmonized scope of protection • precludes national patent legislation from offering absolute protection to the patented product as such, regardless of whether it performs its function in the material containing it

  23. The third question Article 9 of the Directive precludes the holder of a patent issued prior to the adoption of that directive from relying on the absolute protection for the patented product accorded to it under the national legislation then applicable.

  24. The fourth question No direct effect for TRIPS, but TRIPS compliant interpretation No TRIPS problem: (…) an interpretation of Article 9 of the Directive limiting the protection it confers to situations in which the patented product performs its function does not appear to conflict unreasonably with a normal exploitation of the patent and does not ‘unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties’, within the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.

  25. IMPLICATIONS ANWERS? OR MORE QUESTIONS? • A case specific view • Purpose bound protection • A specific function vs a function • Function in the description or also in claims? • Enablement requirements • Claims for derivative products?

  26. Thank you. MORE QUESTIONS? John.allen@nautadutilh.com

More Related