Victory for Biotech Companies at the Supreme Court
1
VICTORYFORBIOTECHCOMPANIESATTHESUPREMECOURT
By
BobH.SotiriadisandAdamMizera*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001VictoriaSquare-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
OnMay21
st2004,theSupremeCourtofCanadarenderedadecisionona
caseofgreatimportancetotheagriculturalbiotechnologysectorand
industry.Endingaseven-yearcourtbattlebetweenaSaskatchewanfarmer
andbiotechgiantMonsanto,theCourtruledthatMonsanto’spatenton
genesandcellsrelatedtoageneticallymodifiedcanolaplantwasvalid,
eventhoughtheplantasawholeisnotpatentable.
PercySchmeiser,afarmerforoverfiftyyears,hadneverpurchased
Monsanto’sRoundupReadyCanola,norobtainedalicenceauthorizinghim
toplantandcultivatethegeneticallyengineeredseedandplant.However,
testsonhis1,000acrelandrevealedthat95to98percentofthefarmer’s
canolacropwascomposedofRoundup-ReadyCanola.Monsantohad
thereforeaccusedSchmeiserofviolatingitspatentrightsbygrowingthe
geneticallymodifiedcanolawithoutalicence.Thegeneticmodification
developedbyMonsantorendersthecanolaplanttoleranttosprayingofthe
herbicidecalledRoundup.
Atfirstglance,thisrulingappearstobeashiftwhencomparedtothe
SupremeCourt’s2002decisionontheHarvardmousewhichheldthata
geneticallymodifiedmousewasnotpatentable,themousebeingahigher-
lifeformandconsequentlynon-patentablesubjectmatter.Courtsinother
jurisdictionsliketheUnitedStatesandEuropehaveupheldsuchpatentson
geneticallymodifiedmice.However,inthepresentcase,themajorityofthe
CourtnotedthattherewasnodisputeintheHarvardmousecaseregarding
thepatentabilityofafertilized,geneticallyalteredmouseeggandcell
culture,regardlessofitsultimateanticipateddevelopmentintoamouse.The
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004.*Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andin
thepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.;LawyerandEngineer,AdamMizeraisa
memberofthesamefirms.PublishedintheissueofAugust2004ofMontrealBusiness
Magazine.Publication062.017E.
2
modifiedgeneandcellforplantsattheheartoftheMonsantocaseare
somewhatanalogoustothemouseeggintheHarvardcase.Consequently,a
patentforageneoracellcontainingthegeneisvalidandthepatenteecan
thenseekcompensationfrompartieswhocultivateplantsincorporatingthe
patentedcellscontainingthepatentedgenes.
Monsantohasencounteredproblemsinotherareasoftheworldrelatedtoits
portfoliooftechnologiesongeneticmodificationofplants.Underthe
pressurefromenvironmentalists,MonsantoannouncedinJune2004itis
pullingtheplugonitsresearchprogramsintogeneticallymodifiedcanola
andwheatcropsinAustralia.InMay2004,Monsantodecidedtocancelthe
launchofRoundupReadywheatplannedtobesoldinCanada.InJanuary
2004,severalorganisationsfiledapetitionattheEuropeanPatentOffice
challengingthepatentrightsgiventoMonsantoonIndianlandraceof
wheat,NapHal.
Nevertheless,giventheSupremeCourt’sruling,itnowseemsclearthat
patentswithclaimsforcellsandgenesforplantsoranimalsarevalidin
Canada.ThisdecisiongivesCanadianbiotechcompaniesanothertoolto
useagainstinfringersastheycannowclaimdamagesorlossofprofitsagainst
competitorsorpartiesusingorsellingplantsandanimalsoutsidethelab,
higher-lifeformscontainingpatentedgenesandcellscreatedinsidethelab.