>>doesn't say it includes private companies however... it'll take an act of congress no?<<
Yes, in general. If the patent laws now authorize the patenting of genetic sequences, etc., it would take an Act of Congress to change the statute. A mere treaty or agreement between the Blair and Clinton administrations would not by itself do that.
BUT: (1) Congress action in ratifying such a treaty would provide the Act of Congress changing the patent laws; and if Congress ratified such a treaty it would probably also pass conforming legislation to modify the patent laws;
(2) whether the patent laws in fact now authorize the full extent of the PTO's issance of the gene patents it has issued is an "open question," not yet decided by the courts, and the courts in deciding those issues may be influenced to some extent by such an agreement, even if not yet ratified (IMO, the courts will be more influenced by the historic thrust of the patent laws in authorizing the patenting of a wide scope of useful "inventions," i.e., more by issues of law rather than of "public policy");
(3) the major danger of such a Clinton-Blair proposed agreement would be to put more genome data more quickly in the public domain, making INCY's databases less valuable and making it harder for INCY to patent, and to enforce and get paid for its "patented genes".
It's notable that it's the British side pushing this (although how much resistance the US side is putting up is unclear). Recall that political opinion in Europe and the UK is generally pretty rabidly against GMO's, etc., whereas US farmers and consumers are much more open to that sort of "genetic engineering" etc. Any fight in Congress over "gene patents" would surely get tied up in those issues, with farmer/agribusiness lobbies heavily invested in the fight, as well as big pharmas - pretty strong, well-funded forces against any broad tinkering with the patent laws in this area. But also a highly emotional area, where the scientific and legal issues are (putting it gently) not understood by most, easily subject to demagoguery.
Yes, OUCH, but the issue is wide open.
But re INCY also remember
(1) that one piece of INCY's future value -- its right to royalties on drugs developed with the use of reagents and database access supplied by INCY to its big pharma subscribers -- is based on contract rights, not patent, and would be unaffected by any treaty, statute or ruling weakening "gene patents"; and
(2) INCY has considerable value in its databases and information management software, wholly apart from its patents (how much value is the issue - my guess is quite a lot more than the market recognizes).
--RCM |
