Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||
| Hearing: May 21, 2002 Judgment: December 5, 2002 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||
| Higher life-forms are not patentable under the meaning of "invention" in section 2 of the Patent Act | |||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin |
|||||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||||
|
Majority by: Bastarache J. |
|||||||||||
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45, 2002 SCC 76 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the patentability of higher life forms, in particular, the Harvard oncomouse.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Harvard researchers developed a process by which it could breed genetically altered mice that would possess a cancer-promoting gene. The school applied for a patent for the genetically altered mice they called the oncomouse as well as a patent for the process by which they created the oncomice.
The Commissioner of Patents rejected their application to patent the mice on grounds that higher life forms were not inventions under section 2 of the Canadian Patent Act which defines an invention as any new and useful improvement, in an art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
[edit] Ruling
The Court found in favour of the government, ruling that higher life forms are not patentable. The opinion of the Court was written by Bastarache with L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, and LeBel JJ concurring.
Though the Court believed that the Commissioner went beyond his powers in ruling against a patent on public policy reasons, the Court came to the same conclusion. The sole issue before the Court was whether the word “manufacture” and “composition of matter” found in the Patent Act include higher life forms.
In its analysis, the Court found that a mouse is not composed solely of matter. Higher life forms possess qualities that transcend the genetic materials that they were composed of. The Court interpreted the patenting of such life to be outside of the purpose and objectives of the Patent Act. To read-in higher life into the act would be beyond the authority of the Court and would be a massive change in the current patent regime. Given the significant public policy issues it would be best settled by the legislature. Only through direct legislation should such an interpretation of the Act be applied.
[edit] Dissent
In a strong dissent written by Binnie J. with McLachlin, Arbour, and Major JJ. concurring, they agreed with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal which used similar reasoning found in the US case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Binnie harshly criticized the artificial distinction between "compositions of matter" and biological life, claiming that the majority is not giving enough deference to government and that it is the legislature's role to legislate exceptions to the Patent Act.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
