Gene Patenting In India

There has been a great advancement in technology after the revelation of the structure of the DNA molecule. Since then, scientists have engaged in efforts of identifying the sequences of these molecules, their function and also in manipulating them to achieve desired results.

GeneOwing to their close association with nature and its use to achieve desired results, biotechnology patents often raise issues of patentability. Gene and nucleic acid-based patents, specifically, have been in controversy in the recent years around the world. The Indian legal position is not as clear as that of other countries on this.

Patentability of Genes
The Patents Act under Section 3(c) specifies that the mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory, discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature would not be patentable.

Section 3(i) states that plants and animals, in whole or any part thereof, other than microorganisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals – cannot be patented.

A gene which is occurring in nature and is not patentable as per Section 3(c). However, it must be noted that considerable amount of skill is involved in identifying the function, location and isolation of gene.

The question therefore arises weather genes be considered a part of plant or animal and therefore will not be patentable? Secondly, what can make these genes patentable? There is no direct answer to these questions in The Indian Patent Act, 1970.

The exclusion of parts of animals or plants ought to be taken seriously as this exclusion is phrased different from the TRIPS provision which excludes plants and animals but there is no specific provision for its parts. Therefore, we need to examine the Patent Practice Manual issued by the Indian Patent Office.

The 2005 draft manual specifically had an annex dedicated to biotechnological and pharmaceutical inventions. This draft stated that any living entity of artificial origin such as transgenic animals and plants and any part thereof are not patentable. The living entities of natural origin such as animals, plants, in whole or any parts thereof, plant varieties, seeds, species and genes are not considered patentable. It also stated that recombinant DNA and plasmids are patentable if there is substantial human intervention.

No such annexure was present in the subsequent draft in 2008. The Dimminaco decision,[1] gave support to explanation under Section 3(j) which only describe how microorganisms will be patentable.

However, under the description of unity of an invention: the manual provides the following example –

When a genetically modified gene sequence/amino acid sequence is novel, involves an inventive step and has industrial application, the following can be claimed: –

  • Gene sequence/amino acid sequence
  • A method of expressing above sequence
  • An antibody against that protein/sequence
  • A kit made from the antibody/sequence

The actual Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure which was released in 2011 does not provide any further elaboration on the subject matter. The only provisions that were retained were the ones pertaining to sequence listing that had to be provided by the patentee and the above-mentioned bullet list under ‘unity of an invention’. The manual did not provide a place for the requirement of substantial human intervention.

Genetically Stable JEV cDNA based on Japanese Encephalitis Virus

The original title of the invention states that it is related to the ‘novel genomic RNA’ of the JEV and an infectious cDNA from it. However, the final granted patent’s title reads as follows ‘Genetically stable JEV cDNA based on Japanese encephalitis viruses.’

This could possibly lead us to conclude that there might have been an objection (however, not to be found in the records accessible on the official website) which led to the amendment of the claims, the title, the abstract to cover the cDNA instead of the RNA. Therefore, it is possible to claim cDNA sequences as a part of a patent in India.

Therefore, the IPO has given a wider protection to the cDNA sequence than any other of its offices, even though it is a mere derivative of the existing sequence.

An Isolated Nucleic Acid Molecule Comprising an Allele of a Genetic Polymorphism Linked to Resistance to Enterotoxigenic Escherichia Coli (ETEC)

This is a patent where the subject matter nucleic acid sequence pertains to resistance to a particular type of E. coli in pigs. The invention covers methods to identify this sequence using probes and primers crafted for this purpose. The first claim covers the particular sequence that results in the trait of resistance in pigs, and as such is naturally occurring. The patent covers both the original sequence and the other man-made probes/primers for identifying the trait. The first examination report does not raise any objection to either the animal source of the gene/the fact that the first claim refers to an isolated gene sequence.24 This thus concludes that animal genes are patentable in India.

In the recent Monsanto Technology LLC v Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd[2] case, the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi held that “genetically modified plants, genetically modified seeds and gene sequences that provide genetic traits to plants are not patentable subject matter in India”. The Division Bench’s decision was subsequently set aside by the Apex Court of India owing to the complexity of issues and the need for a re-examination of evidence. The Apex Court did not make any concluding remarks relating to the patenting of isolated DNA and cDNA. Therefore, making the Indian Position unclear on the matter.

Conclusion

When the IPO officials were generally asked about their practice with regard to gene patents – it was stated that genes that do occur in nature are not patentable. Because Section 3(c) and (d) prescribes as to what are not patents and the following provisions put a bar on patenting of a naturally occurring gene. Thus, those genes which do occur in nature are not patentable.

As far as non-naturally occurring genes are concerned, once there is a delineated function or utility specified, they will become patentable. Because they pass the test of as to what is can be patented

Novelty – Genetic engineering and application of advanced Biotechnology to obtain a desired result.

Utility – research and development of medicinal or other purposes having utility for public at large, It has industrial application and a market value.

Non-Obviousness – Direct use of Human gene doesn’t involve any new innovative step and the information is already in the public domain but making an enhanced Gene, non-naturally occurring increasing the efficacy, by changing the genetic information or making significant changes or modifications in the upstream or downstream.

Also, it is mentioned that the exclusion referring to plants/animals/parts of plants or animals are not applicable at the molecular/cellular level where genes are involved.

Author: Sampada Kapoor (intern) – a student of LLM (IPR) from Amity University, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or contact us at IIPRD.

References:

[1] Dimminaco A.G. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, (2002) I.P.L.R. 255 (Cal)

[2] AIR 2019 SC 559

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

twenty − eleven =

Archives

  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • 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