LUDWIG LAWYERS
  • Welcome
  • ABOUT
    • BEATRICE LUDWIG
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Commercial Law
    • Intellectual Property Law
    • Civil Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Charities & Not for Profits Law
    • Wills and Estates
  • Regenerative Agriculture
  • BLOG
  • STORIES
  • Contact

Intellectual Property Law

We do not support patents on life.
We can help you protect your content, design, brand or idea right from the start - to avoid future expensive litigation.
CONTACT LUDWIG LAWYERS

Intellectual Property Law

We act in the following intellectual property (IP) matters:
  • Copyright 
  • Trademark
  • Assignment of IP
  • Exclusive licences of IP
  • Non exclusive licences of IP
  • Non disclosure (confidentiality) deeds and agreements

We also provide advice on matters such as:
  • Company names
  • Business names
  • Domain names
  • Social media accounts

Patents

Patents require the expertise of an expert patent lawyer. At Ludwig Lawyers, we do not act in any patent matters. 

We do not support patents on life.  

The Myriad Genetics case in Australia and the United States - Isolated Human Genes Not Patentable

Australia's Myriad Genetics case

Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics Inc is a test case on whether human gene patents can be granted in Australia, specifically whether a patent can be granted over the BRCA1 gene. Watch Prof Peter Cashman explain the law and the court case before the hearing and before the judgment was handed down: “Patenting of Genes - Ownership of Crops and Cures by Multinationals”.

The applicants lost the case at first instance. See 
Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics Inc [2013] FCA 65, Federal Court of Australia, Nicholas J, 15 February 2013. Nicholas J held that an isolated gene, in contrast to a gene in situ, was patentable.

Ms Yvonne D'Arcy, the second applicant, appealed the case. The appeal was heard in August 2013 in the Full Federal Court in Sydney. Yvonne D'Arcy lost the appeal before the Full Federal Court of Australia: see D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 (5 September 2014).

The Full Federal Court decision is contrary to what the highest court of the United States had already decided on the same issue, namely, that isolated genes cannot be patented in the United States. See also the following news articles on the Full Federal Court of Australia judgment: 
"Australian federal court rules isolated genetic material can be patented - Decision is likened to ‘being allowed to patent oxygen’, as critics warn of serious repercussions for medical research", The Guardian, 5 September 2015, and "Calls for patent law reform after Federal Court judgment", ABC, 5 September 2014. 

​Ms Yvonne D'Arcy sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia which was granted, and, finally, the 
High Court of Australia, on 7 October 2015, held that patent claims to isolated human DNA used in testing for breast cancer were not a ‘manner of manufacture’ and that the claims were therefore not patentable subject matters in Australia. See D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35

​
United States Myriad Genetics case

First instance: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (held: genes not patentable).

Second instance: Myriad Genetics v Association for Molecular Pathology, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (held: isolated DNA can be patented).

Third instance: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Federal Court, second hearing, 16 August 2012 (held: isolated DNA can be patented).

​On 30 November 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of the Federal Circuit' ruling. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on 15 April 2013. See the transcript here. Myriad lost in The Supreme Court (the highest court in the United States) which decided on [insert date] that isolated genes cannot be patented: see [insert judgement details]

Plant Breeders Rights

At Ludwig Lawyers, ​we do not act for anyone seeking to have a plant breeders rights granted.

Plant varieties were developed in the public domain over thousands of years. With the privatisation of public seed banks, seeds and plant cultivars were transferred to private interests. We believe that plant varieties belong in the public domain and that the plant breeders rights legislation should be abolished.

Biopiracy

The 'Green Revolution' - a misnomer if ever one existed - forced on India has had disastrous effects on farmers, agriculture and the environment. The same attempts are now made for another 'Green Revolution' in Africa.

​Dr Vandana Shiva and her not for profit research organisation Navdanya have been fighting against these destructive forces for decades. They have had several important legal victories against Biopiracy.

"Technologies of the green revolution not only made thousands of indigenous varieties of food crops extinct, they also destroyed soil fertility and created water scarcity. And within a few decades of their introduction, they failed to deliver... [with resulting] hunger.

"A new technology - biotechnology or genetic engineering - is today being promoted as the technology of deliverance. However, genetic engineering is a laggard technology, limping far behind the advanced technologies of farming communities of yesteryears. It merely tries to recreate artificially and often irrationallly, usually with hazardous or ludicrous consequences, what nature and farmers have already most aptly created in partnership of over thousands of years. An example of such irrationality is Monsanto's attempt to replace the daily consumption of two tablespoons of cooked greens with kilos of its "golden rice" (genetically engineered to contain Vitamin A), to prevent Vitamin A deficiency. 

"Taking nature's and farmer's intellectual wealth, innovation and creativity for free and creating artificial crops mainly for profits is intellectcual piracy. Intellectual piracy is made possible  through Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) regiemes of patents and plant breeders' rights."


Extract from "Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops", Navdanya, 2009, pages 5-6

Find out more about the importance of Seed Freedom and Seed Sovereignty at https://navdanya.org/site/living-seed/seed-freedom.
Patents - Australia
  • Book: 'Gene Cartels - Biotech Patents in the Age of Free Trade' by Dr Luigi Palombi
  • Patents Act 1990 (Cth) 
  • Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth)
  • IP Australia and AusPat
  • Inquiry into Gene Patents, 26 November 2010 (completed inquiry)
  • Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010 (completed Senate  Inquiry). Unfortunately, the Parliament never voted for the Bill, and it lapsed. The Dissenting Report is worth reading, and our MPs should have relied on this Dissenting Report and should have enacted this Bill. Watch Dr Luigi Palombi explain the Bill at “Patenting of Genes - Ownership of Crops and Cures by Multinationals?” and at “What’s the Future of Food”.
  • Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) ("the Amendment Act"). The Amendment Act introduced a new "experimental use" defence into the Patents Act and a new definition of "useful" (see new section 7A of the Patents Act).
  • ​See notes on the 'Myriad Genetics' case on the left.
Patents - United States
  • ​See notes on the 'Myriad Genetics' case on the left.
  • Prometheus case: Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc (Supreme Court of the Unites States, 20 March 2012)
  • “The Future of Food” - classic 1997 documentary on GM crops by Deborah Garcia
Patents - International
  • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT)
  • World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
  • Art 27 to 34 of TRIPS Agreement
Patents - Canada
  • Monsanto v Schmeiser: First instance: Monsanto v Schmeiser 2001 FCT 256 (Federal Court). Appeal decision: Schmeiser v Monsanto [2004] 1 SCR 902 (Supreme Court). Watch Percy Schmeiser speak about the problems with GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
 Plant Breeder’s Rights
  • Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth)
  • Plant Breeder’s Rights Regulations 1994 (Cth)
  • IP Australia and PBR Search Database
  • International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
  • International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)
  • Introduction to UPOV - slideshow on the definitions of “UPOV”, “Variety”, “Improvement”, “Benefit”, “Protection”, “Breeder”, “Exceptions” and “Conditions”
Copyright
  • Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
  • Copyright Regulations 2017 (Cth)
  • Copyright Council
  • Creative Commons Australia
  • Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA)
  • The Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS)
  • Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited (PPCA)
Designs
  • Designs Act 2003 (Cth)
  • Designs Regulations 2004 (Cth)
  • IP Australia
Trademarks and Domain Names
  • Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
  • Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth)
  • IP Australia
  • Australian Domain Name Administrator (.auDA)
  • Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
+61410 583 550 - info@ludwiglawyers.com
LUDWIG LAWYERS - Simple Solutions in a Complex Environment
MAIL: Suite 3377, 248 Beach Road, Batehaven NSW 2536, Australia
MEETINGS VIA ZOOM OR IN PERSON - BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
ABN 29487308877
  • Welcome
  • ABOUT
    • BEATRICE LUDWIG
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Commercial Law
    • Intellectual Property Law
    • Civil Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Charities & Not for Profits Law
    • Wills and Estates
  • Regenerative Agriculture
  • BLOG
  • STORIES
  • Contact