Canada Joins the Gene Patenting Debate

23 November 2014 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog

Canada has joined the gene patenting debate. Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“Children’s”) sued the University of Utah Research Foundation, Genzyme Genetics, and Yale University (“Defendants”) in Canada’s Federal Court asserting that 5 patents[1] assigned to Defendants (collectively the “Long QT Patents”) for compositions and methods useful in the diagnosis and/or assessment of Long QT syndrome (“Long QT”) in human patients are invalid and/or unenforceable.

Diagnosis of Long QT Syndrome


Children’s complaint describes Long QT as an inherited cardiac disorder. Patients suffering from Long QT may experience seizures, cardiac arrest or sudden death. Symptoms of the disease can present at any time. Sudden death is the first sign of the disease in 10-15 percent of affected individuals. While symptoms of the disease are severe, treatments are available for those who are timely diagnosed with the disease.

Long QT is associated with mutations in 13 human genes. Five of the 13 mutated genes are the subject of Defendant’s Long QT Patents. Children’s asserts that no laboratory in Ontario has obtained approval from the Ontario Government to conduct on site genetic testing for Long QT because the Long QT Patents prevent such testing. Complaint at page 5. Ontario hospitals and physicians that wish to offer these tests must obtain Ontario government funding to purchase testing services from genetic testing services outside of Canada. Id.

Children’s currently provides genetic testing, but not for Long QT. Children’s would like to offer these tests using next-generation sequencing technology. The complaint states that implementation of the Long QT tests would enable Children’s to build the first repository of Long QT genetic information in Canada, with the hope of improving diagnosis and therapy.

The Long QT Patents


Children’s complaint states that the Long QT Patents collectively cover the identification of the molecular basis for Long QT, including the identification of genetic mutations that cause Long QT in five Long QT genes: KCNQ1, KCNH2, KCNE1, KCNE2, and SCN5A. The patents claim isolated nucleic acid sequences, nucleic acid probes and methods for identifying Long QT mutations.

The complaint notes that Children’s proposed claims will not infringe the Long QT Patents because the use of next generation sequencing does not require isolation or amplification of gene sequences. The method claims also are alleged not to infringe the Long QT Patents because diagnosis and/or assessment of the disease will require the clinical judgment of a clinical professional and will not be possible based on identification of mutations alone. Complaint at page 10.

Joining an International Debate

With Children’s suit, Canada has entered the gene patenting debate and provides the Canadian court the opportunity to re-evaluate patent-eligible subject matter. According to a blog posting by Children’s counsel, the Canadian definition of patentable subject matter is derived from the U.S. definition but the concepts are not similarly applied differently in Canada. (See, “Gene Patents in Canada: A Myriad of Possibilities”). At the same time, the U.S. debate may be culminating in the soon to be released revised USPTO patent-eligibility guidelines that are anticipated to be more favorable to patenting natural products than the previously issued March Guidance. (SeeUSPTO Official Says New Eligibility Rules Will Quell Fears” posted by Law360 on Friday, November 21, 2014).

The Personalized Medicine Bulletin will continue to track this case as the law regarding patent-eligibility continues to evolve in the U.S. and internationally.

Children’s complaint is attached here.

[1] The five Canadian patents are: 2,240,737; 2,336,236; 2,337,491; 2,369,812; and 2,416,545.

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