Analysing the Legality and Ethical Debates Surrounding Biological Patents

In today’s day and age, scientific innovations are developing at a breakneck speed. A lion’s share of this development is facilitated by the biotechnology sector. In a broad sense, biotechnology can be defined as an area in biology that uses biological elements and living organisms to create products for commercial purposes. Such products may include the production of antibiotics, genetically modified seeds, or hormones. Biotechnology is also used to treat several diseases such as AIDS and diabetes. Patents carry great relevance in the field of biotechnology. Biotechnology patents fall under the ambit of utility patents and it gives its owner an exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, or selling an invention or a manufacturing process. Nucleotides, amino acid sequences, modification of seeds or crops, and altered microorganisms are some of the prominent examples of patentable biotechnology. The patentability of biological beings has been subject to heated debates for several decades. While many argue that the objective behind patenting biotechnological inventions is to foster further innovation, on the other hand, it has also been debated that it is not possible for patent laws, biotechnology, and ethics to exist in a single paradigm.

Biological Patents

From an international perspective, the TRIPS agreement has laid down various conditions that have to be satisfied in order to patent a particular invention. Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement deals with patentable subject matters. Under this article, a prerequisite is such that the products or processes should be novel, must have an inventive step, and should be capable of industrial application in order to be patented. More specifically, Article 27(3) of the TRIPS agreement sheds light on the patentability of plant and animal inventions or the lack thereof. The TRIPS agreement states that any invention is patentable if they meet the prerequisite standards set for patentable subject matters (which includes novelty, having an inventive step, and has industrial application), however, it is also suggested that WTO members may also exclude plants and animals other than microorganisms and biological processes that are used for the production of plants or animals, excluding non-biological and microbiological processes. Essentially, this means that WTO members may patent an invention that could be a non-biological or a microbiological process as long as it is novel, consists of an inventive step, and has some industrial applicability.  Biotechnology has also immensely contributed to India’s economy. Accordingly, the Indian patent act, 1970 regulates the patentability of biological inventions.  Section 3(c) of the patent act, 1970 mentions that “discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature” cannot be patented. Moreover, section 3(j) of the Act also states that plants and animals except for microorganisms but including seeds, species, plant varieties, and essentially biological processes for the production or propagation of plants and animals cannot be patented as well. Further guidelines regarding the patentability of biological inventions are elucidated in the Indian Biotechnology Guidelines, 2013 ad the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure 2005. The conditions that determine the patentability of biological inventions that are prescribed in the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure are quite similar to the TRIPS guidelines. It mentions that DNA, plasmids, and processes for manufacturing the same are patentable if they consist of an inventive step which indicates a substantive level of human intervention. The manual mentions that a genetically modified sequence/amino acid sequence is patentable if it involves an inventive step if it is novel and comprises of an inventive step along with industrial applicability. Thus, if the recombinant DNA, plasmids, or amino acid sequences are novel, can be claimed to be protected, comprises of an inventive step, and has industrial applicability, it is patentable.

While biological inventions are a boon to mankind, there have been heated debates over the patentability of the same. One side of the debate contends that patenting such biological inventions is imperative in today’s day and age since it fuels further research and development. It is argued that if the creators of such biological inventions are recognized and are monetarily incentivized, the monetary gains could be reinvested in further research and development which would eventually facilitate the creation of new biological inventions that could be of use in several industries, thus benefiting mankind. With the onset of the pandemic, biological research has taken the forefront. Thus, patents pertaining to medicines or vaccines that can be manufactured with the help of biological elements could lead to creating breakthrough inventions that would greatly benefit the healthcare industry. On the other hand, several have opposed the idea of biological patents. It has been argued that patents act as an impediment to healthcare access. Imposing patents on biological innovations that are intended to benefit mankind would keep drug prices high, thus, acting as a barrier to access healthcare. This would make it increasingly difficult for low-income and developing counties to afford such drugs. For example, Antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, a treatment that is used to retard the progression of the HIV virus was a pharmaceutical product (that is also regarded as a biological invention) that could not achieve equal distribution in South Africa due to stringent patent laws and unaffordability issues. Furthermore, this could also lead to pharmaceutical conglomerates having complete monopoly over a particular biological invention thus restricting other countries or researchers to develop, manufacture, or research on the patented biological inventions.  Lastly, an ethical paradigm of the debate contends that imposing patenting of biological inventions could lead to the “commoditization” of life forms. This side of the debate argues that life forms, no matter how basic they are, occur naturally in our environment and thus cannot be marketed. Despite the debate surrounding the patentability of biological inventions, it is a fact that biotechnology has greatly contributed to several economies and has created groundbreaking discoveries which could benefit mankind. However, the disadvantages of biological patents cannot be completely disregarded as well. With the field of biotechnology developing at a breakneck speed, it has become imperative to balance ethical and legal issues related to biological patents without tampering with the possibilities of innovation.

Author: Sanjana, a BBA LLB student of  Symbiosis Law School (Hyderabad), currently an intern at IIPRD. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at vidushi@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twenty − two =

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010