The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday appeared to have put an end to a
California’s group nine-year effort to overturn patents on human embryonic stem
cells held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF).
The court refused to hear the case that was brought by
Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., and Jeanne Loring, head of the stem
cell program at Scripps. The court issued its decision with no comment.
An article by Lisa Shuchman in The Litigation Daily said,
“The high court's denial leaves in place a ruling last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that Consumer Watchdog lacked standing to appeal the findings of the PTO's (Patent and Trademark Office) administrative patent review board.”
While today’s ruling involved relatively technical legal
matters, the heart of the challenge to WARF’s patents involves who profits from stem cell research along with whether its patents have or will stifle scientific research.
Royalties from WARF patents in California alone generated an
estimated $200 million in 2006 for the foundation. Executives of biotech firms
in California have complained that WARF’s restrictions have posed a significant
barrier to private investment.
Asked for comment, Loring said,
"This doesn't mean they believe that human cells can or cannot be patented, but only that they decided that we had not been sufficiently harmed by the patent for them to become involved.
"Even without a Supreme Court decision, we have succeeded. WARF wanted their patents to include iPS cells as well as ES cells, but they had to narrow their claims as a result of our challenge, and they cannot claim ownership of iPSCs."
Doing the legal lifting in the WARF challenge was Dan
Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation of New York.
Shuchman carried a comment from Ravicher on yesterday’s ruling. She wrote,
“Ravicher said Monday that the Supreme Court's decision could impact many would-be patent challengers. ‘This case could have severe consequences for other third parties that challenge patents with IPRs or the other proceedings created under the America Invents Act,’ Ravicher said. ‘Now they will have no right to appeal an adverse decision.’
“But he also said the decision wouldn't preclude individuals who can claim direct harm, such as stem cell research scientists, from challenging WARF's patent—much the same way doctors successfully challenged the Myriad patents.
“Under the America Invents Act, third parties, such as nonprofits, public interest groups and industry organizations, have the right to challenge patents at the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). But under the Federal Circuit’s ruling that now stands, they don't have the right to appeal a PTAB decision.”
Shuchman also recounted briefly some unusual history on the
federal appellate ruling that declared Consumer Watchdog had no standing to
sue. A more detailed account of that hearing can be found here.
The California Stem Cell Report has asked Consumer Watchdog and WARF for comments. We will carry them when we receive them. Here is the full text of what Loring had to say.
"Being involved for nearly 9 years in the challenge of WARF's patent on human ES cells has given me a fascinating glimpse into our legal system. I hoped that the Supreme Court would decide on the patentability of human embryonic stem cells. But ultimately, the Court decided not to take our case. This doesn't mean they believe that human cells can or cannot be patented, but only that they decided that we had not been sufficiently harmed by the patent for them to become involved. Even without a Supreme Court decision, we have succeeded. WARF wanted their patents to include iPS cells as well as ES cells, but they had to narrow their claims as a result of our challenge, and they cannot claim ownership of iPSCs.
"I've learned that the law is every bit as complex as scientific research, and have gained great admiration for people like our attorney, Dan Ravicher, who relentlessly pursue the question of patent ethics - what should and should not be patented in the public interest. Dan brought the issue of patenting the human genome to the Court, and won (the Myriad Genetics case). Working on this challenge with Dan and John Simpson (of Consumer Watchdog) has been a joy, and if they ever want my help in the future, I'd agree in a second."
No comments:
Post a Comment