Patenting in the biopharmaceutical industry - comparing the US with Europe
December 2002
Patents play a key role in the biopharmaceutical industry. Although there are
significant differences between the laws governing biopharmaceutical patents
in the US and in Europe, over the past decade the number of biopharmaceutical
filings and granted patents has risen substantially, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Thomson Derwent's Luke Foster, Doina Nanu and Simon Alcock take a closer look
at the trans-Atlantic differences.
Importance of patents
The evolution of patent laws
Leading assignees
A question of patentability
Utility
Cloning
Exclusions
Stem cell patenting
Rapid rises in biopharmaceutical patents
Attributable causes
Importance of patents
A patent is the grant of an exclusive right to exploit a specific product or
process for a set period of time. This protection of new products and processes
from competitors, and the exclusive right to market that it proffers, is crucial
to commercial success for biopharmaceutical companies. It enables them to recoup
the significant investments they have made developing and discovering new products
and processes and bringing them to market. Patent protection also enables companies
to generate sufficient income to support future research and develop new products.
Patents, therefore, are the lynchpins of the biopharmaceutical industry.1
The evolution of patent laws
As equally important as patents are to biopharmaceutical companies, the biotechnology
industry as a whole has been a major influence on the patenting system and the
evolution of patent laws. The patenting system has been adapted to meet and
respond to a whole range of controversial issues arising from genetic research,
while biotechnology companies have raised significant, new questions on how
established patent precedent should be applied2.
For example, many biotechnology companies viewed the ruling in the case of
In re Durden, 763 F.2d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1985), that a method of producing
a new product could be held to be obvious, notwithstanding the fact that the
product produced had never been disclosed and was not known, to be a threat
to obtaining an essential level of protection when applied to biotechnological
processes. As a result, the biotechnology industry took the lead in pressing
for legislation that effectively overruled the impact of the Durden
decision on biotechnological process inventions, via the Biotechnological
Process Patent Amendments Act of 1995.2
Leading assignees
In 2001, according to statistics found using Derwent World Patents Index®,
the top patent assignees amongst US biopharmaceutical organisations were Smithkline
Beecham, the University of California and Hitachi (see
Graph 1).
In the same year the top patent assignees in Europe were Degussa-Huels AG,
Novo Nordisk AS, and Degussa AG (see Graph
2).
A question of patentability
Patent practitioners generally agree that the patentability requirements governing
these companies' patent applications are comparable between Europe and the US.
However, the way the United States Patent Office (USPTO) and the European Patent
Office (EPO), who handle the majority of patent applications in the US and Europe,
examine for patentability is different.
To be granted a patent in the US, an invention has to be new, non-obvious
and useful. There have been lengthy debates on whether the specific
utility can or should be present in a 'gene' patent. One wide-spread opinion
is that "the utility of a particular gene or polypeptide rarely can be demonstrated
until there has been a sufficient characterisation of the function of a gene
or its expression product" (Testimony of Dennis J. Henner before the US
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property).2
In comparison, European patent law is governed by Article 52 of the European
Patent Convention, which stipulates that the basic requirements for a patentable
invention are novelty, inventive step and industrial application.
Although the novel aspect and the industrial application, mainly medicine and
agriculture for the field of biotechnology, are easier to identify, the law
on inventive step in Europe is seen as a greater hurdle than the equivalent
law in the US (that of non-obviousness), and has attracted more controversy.
The distinction between discovery, which is not patentable under European law,
and a patentable biotechnology invention, is often difficult to make and can
add an ethical dimension.
Utility
It is also largely accepted that the concept of 'utility' is broader in the
US than its corresponding stricter requirement of 'industrial application' in
Europe. However, on 5 January 2001, the USPTO issued new, stricter guidelines
on patenting genes. These new rules raised the bar, requiring that a gene-related
invention should present substantial utility to qualify for grant.
The new guidelines were welcomed both by industry and law firms for creating
a well-defined framework1, and brought USPTO guidelines closer to
European patent law.
Cloning
An area where the US and European patenting systems differ in approach, is the
controversial issue of human cloning. Whereas in the US, no attempt has been
made to implement strict legislation on this issue, in Europe, in July 1998,
a European Directive (98/44/EC) was adopted on the legal protection
of biotechnology inventions. The Directive set up specific provisions on applications
concerning biotechnological inventions and stipulates as unpatentable, inventions
whose commercial exploitation is in conflict with morality. This specifically
referred to:
- processes for cloning human beings
- processes for modifying the germ line genetic identity of human beings
- uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes
- processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals that are likely
to cause them suffering without any substantial benefit to man or animal
According to Article 5 of the Directive, the human body, as such, and
discoveries related to it that extend human knowledge but do not extend to human
ability, e.g. the human genetic code, are not patentable. However, the isolated
elements of the human body, e.g. genetic material isolated from its natural
environment, may constitute a patentable invention.
Although the Directive was supposed to clarify and harmonise patent legislation
applied to biotechnology throughout the Member States, it has created controversy.
EU members should have incorporated the Directive into their national legal
systems by 31 July 2000. So far only five states have done so. However, the
validity of the Directive was confirmed by the European Court of Justice in
October 2001 following a challenge by the Netherlands, and the European Patent
Convention has subsequently been amended to include the main dispositions.
Exclusions
There are also differences between Europe and the US regarding exclusions from
patentability. In Europe, patents on diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods
are not accepted. However, inventions regarding drugs and products for medical
purposes are patentable. In the United States, treatment methods, as such, can
be patented.
Stem cell patenting
Another major difference between the US and Europe is that, whereas in the US
patents on human embryonic stem cells have been granted, in Europe the ethics
of stem cells patentability is still a controversial subject of debate, with
need for further clarification and legal foundation.
The ethical aspects of patenting involving human stem cells have been analysed
by the European Group of Ethics (EGE), the main advisory body on biotech ethics
of the European Commission. The Group decided that the recourse to compulsory
licence should be encouraged, when the access to diagnostic and treatment is
blocked by misuse of patent rights, and stressed the fact that it is the responsibility
of the Member States to establish legal procedure for delivery of compulsory
licences, and to examine, if fair access to health-care justifies such a procedure.
The Group considered that only human stem cells lines that have been modified
by an inventive process to get new characteristics for specific industrial application
are patentable. However, stem cells that have been isolated and cultured, but
have not been modified should not be considered for patents. Concerning cloning
techniques aimed at obtaining human embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes,
the Group called for a cautious approach, taking into account the exclusion
of such inventions from patentability. The Group also called for the creation
of an EU Registry of unmodified human stem cell lines.
Rapid rises in biopharmaceutical patents
Even though there are significant differences between the laws governing biopharmaceutical
patents in the US and in Europe, the number of biopharmaceutical patent applications
has risen dramatically in the past decade on both sides of the Atlantic. In
1978, the USPTO received just 30 patent applications from the whole biotechnology
field. By 1995, this figure had reached 15,600. 4 In 2001, the technology
centre in the USPTO, of which the biotechnology examining division is a major
part (about two-thirds of its examiners specialise in biotechnology), received
34,527 filings.3 The number of US granted patents is also on the
increase. In 2001, according to statistics in Derwent World Patents Index,
5170 biotechnology patents were granted (Table 1).
Source: Derwent World Patents Index
In Europe, the number of applications for biopharmaceutical patents has grown
from just 430 in 1992, to 3544 in 2001 (Table 2).
Source: Derwent World Patents Index
In the same time period, the number of granted patents has risen from a handful
in 1993 to 533 in 2001. Out of this figure, the most granted patents were given
to German companies, closely followed by Japanese and Dutch companies (Table
3).
Source: Derwent World Patents Index
The explosion in the number of biopharmaceutical patents has posed
new problems for patent offices, who have had to adapt their procedures and
practices to cope with the increased workload. The EPO receives between 2,500
and 3,000 biotechnology applications a year, comprising 3.5% - 4% of total applications.
Of the office's 4,500 examiners, about 200 work in the biotechnology division,
a figure that has doubled over the past few years. In response to the rapid
rise in biotechnology patents, the EPO has put in place a number of initiatives
to speed up the patent grant procedure, from simple changes to the rules to
the introduction of sophisticated automation systems (see
Graph 3).
Attributable causes
The dramatic rise in the number of biopharmaceutical patents in the past few
years could be attributable to the completion of the human genome project, with
genes and sequences arising out of the project providing a new route to drug
discovery. It is also possible that advances in technology, especially in bioinformatics,
are helping to swell patent volumes, by providing faster means of processing
data.
Biotechnology companies are starting to use bioinformatics techniques
to visually analyse new nucleotide sequences, in order to quickly and efficiently
determine the most promising drug targets and turn them into pharmaceutical
products. This is giving these companies a competitive advantage, and is making
bioinformatics techniques themselves as important competitively to companies
as the products the techniques are helping to develop. As a result, biopharmaceutical
companies are looking to protect their bioinformatics techniques with software
patents.5 This is opening up a whole fresh area of debate over biopharmaceutical
patents, again highlighting differences between the US, where software is seen
as patentable, and Europe, where software is considered to be unpatentable.
Luke Foster is a Copywriter for Thomson Derwent.
Doina Nanu is Data Acquisition Manager for Thomson Derwent.
Simon Alcock is Thomson Derwent's Product Development Manager -
Life Sciences.
This article was first published in Drug
Plus International
(August 2002 Volume 1 No 1)
1 Biotech companies call for patent reform, Tabitha Parker,
Managing Intellectual Property, 2001.
2 Testimony of Dennis J. Henner before the US House Judiciary Subcommittee
on Courts and Intellectual Property, July 13 2000.
3 How to obtain biotech patents, Ingrid Herling, Managing
Intellectual Property, 2001.
4 The power of patent information, Jenny Bush, International
Biotechnology Labaratory, October 1998.
5 United States: Bioinformatics: The new software patent frontier,
Dr Stephen Lesavich, 27 September 2001.