Orrick herrington sutcliffe llp
Download
1 / 20

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 197 Views
  • Updated On :

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. What Role Does/Should IP Play in the GM Food Debate ?. Elizabeth A. Howard. Common Misconception #1:. Patenting Genetically Modified Crops. Patents to genes and DNA sequences confer rights to what already exists in nature.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - raja


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Orrick herrington sutcliffe llp l.jpg

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP

What Role Does/Should IP Play in the GM Food Debate?

Elizabeth A. Howard


Slide2 l.jpg

Common Misconception #1:

Patenting Genetically Modified Crops

  • Patents to genes and DNA sequences confer rights to what already exists in nature.


Slide3 l.jpg

Patenting Genetically Modified Crops

What the patent laws actually protect:

  • Patents are not granted to genes as they exist in nature

  • Patents may be granted to genes in man-made compositions e.g. isolated DNA sequences.


Slide4 l.jpg

Not Protectable by Patent: Nature, Physical Phenomena, Abstract Ideas

Products of nature are not protectable by patent, even

“[a] hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature”

- Funk Bros. Co. v. Kalo Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1948)


Slide5 l.jpg

What is Protectable: Abstract Ideas

“anything under the sun that is made by man.”

- Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)


Slide6 l.jpg

Purification of a naturally occurring compound or organism may render it patentable:

  • a biologically pure culture of Streptomyces was held not a “product of nature” and hence patentable subject matter.

- In re Bergy, 563 F.2d 1031 (1977)

  • purified prostoglandins PGE and PGF, naturally occurring in prostate glands, have been held to be patentable subject matter.

- In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394 (CCPA 1970)


Slide7 l.jpg

Not patentable: may render it patentable:

“a DNA sequence consisting essentially of a DNA sequence encoding human erythopoietin”

Patentable:

“a purified and isolated DNA sequence encoding human erythopoeitin.”

- Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co.,13 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1737 (D. Mass. 1989).


Slide8 l.jpg

Patenting Genetically Modified Crops may render it patentable:

Common Misconception #2:

  • A patent confers ownership rights


Slide9 l.jpg

Patenting Genetically Modified Crops may render it patentable:

What the patent right actually confers:

The right to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing the patented invention.


Slide10 l.jpg

Patenting Genetically Modified Crops may render it patentable:

What the patent right does not confer:

The right to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing unpatented technologies.

The right to exclude use of the patented technology in a country in which the patent has not issued.




Slide13 l.jpg

% Total US Acreage in Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States

Transgenic Crop % total US acreage

GE soybeans 84%

GE cotton 76%

GE corn 45%


Slide14 l.jpg

Impact of IP for GE Crops in the U.S. United States

  • Stimulates investment and innovation

  • Encourages cross-licensing


Slide15 l.jpg

What is the Global IP Story? United States

  • Traditionally widely variable

  • GATT Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of IP Rights (TRIPs) intended to provide uniformity:

    • Article 27 (patentable subject matter – inventions must be new, involve inventive step, capable of industrial application)

    • Article 41 et seq. provides for enforcement of IP rights


Slide16 l.jpg

What is the Effect of Weak IP on Promoting Innovation? United States

  • Local companies reluctant to set up research facilities

  • Leaves funding of local research to public funding sources


Slide17 l.jpg

What is the Effect of Weak IP on Technology Transfer? United States

  • Companies reluctant to provide know-how

  • Particularly problematic in area of GMO, as easily copied, reproduced


Slide18 l.jpg

What is the Consequence of Improved IP and IP Enforcement? United States

  • Increased prices?

  • Effect on quality

  • Effect on internally developed technology

  • Effect on access to external technology


Slide19 l.jpg

IP Protection is Only One Step to Introduction of GM Crops United States

  • Need to overcome regulatory barriers

  • Need willing buyer/seller

  • Rules in a single country can have global effect


Slide20 l.jpg

Do GM Crops Benefit Developing Countries United States

  • Effects on spoilage

  • Effects on yield

  • Effect on nutrition


ad