Do the USPTO 101 Guidelines Violate International Trade Agreements?

09 April 2014 PharmaPatents Blog

One advantage of being a blogger in the relatively small world of patents is that I have gotten to know practitioners in other countries who also have a keen interest in patent law. One such person is Australian Registered Patent Attorney Mark Summerfield, who blogs at Patentology. I enjoyed his article on the new USPTO 101 Guidelines, and that led to a discussion where he raised the question whether the Guidelines violate international trade agreements. He agreed that I could share his comments here, and I do so to spark further consideration, discussion, and public comments challenging the Guidelines.

International Concerns

One thing some of us are wondering down-under is whether the USPTO interpretation of the Myriad decision, if correct, places the United States in breach of its obligations under various international agreements, such as Chapter 17 of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). The US is generally very quick to criticise trading partners for any perceived weaking of IP protections!

Article 17.9(1) of the AUSFTA clearly states that “[e]ach Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application. The Parties confirm that patents shall be availablte for any new uses or methods of using a known product.”

Article 17.9(2) provides that each Party may only exclude from patentability ‘(a) inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal, or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by law; and (b) diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans and animals.”

Excluding genomic DNA is no doubt arguably covered under (a), while the outcome in Mayo clearly falls within (b). But if new and useful combinations, uses and methods of using natural products are generally excluded under 35 USC §101, as the USPTO has concluded, it is difficult to see how this is consistent with the obligations of the U.S. under Article 17.9(1) of the AUSFTA.

I find Mark’s comments in this last paragraph interesting because while some countries have excluded specific subject matter from patent eligibility on these grounds, the Supreme Court did not invoke principles of “public order” or “morality” to reach its decision in Myriad, and did not base its decision in Mayo on any general principle that diagnostic methods cannot be patented.

So, do the new USPTO 101 Guidelines violate international agreements?

Undermining International Harmonization

When Myriad was pending at the Supreme Court, I explained that a decision against patent-eligibility would set the U.S. apart from most other countries that do permit the patenting of “isolated” DNA. The new USPTO 101 Guidelines go far beyond Myriad, and set the U.S. apart from virtually every country with its new “structurally different test” for patent eligible compositions of matter. It is ironic that the USPTO is working with other national patent offices to promote “global patent harmonization” (as announced in this April 3 press release) while at the same time taking one giant step backwards from the rest of the world on the fundamental question of patent eligibility.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT