Human genetics : minutes of evidence, Wednesday 8 February 1995 ... / Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Date:
[1995], ©1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Human genetics : minutes of evidence, Wednesday 8 February 1995 ... / Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    7/40 (page 77)
    8 February 1995] [ Continued 28. Department of Health use of the provisions has been circumspect and very occasional. However, the existence of the powers has helped to avoid a larger, but unknown, number of potential difficulties. Two examples serve to show their force. The first arose in the early 1960s when the Minister of Health invoked Crown Use to prevent Pfizer Ltd from using its patent rights to enforce excessive prices for the central purchase by the National Health Service (NHS) of oxytetracycline—which was critical to health care at the time. The action resulted in the Department obtaining its supplies of the product at one-tenth of the original Pfizer price, but the judge who dealt with the case emphasised the importance of exercising the provision only exceptionally and rarely. 29. The second example was more recent and involved action by a patentee against an NHS supplier for infringement of patent rights in respect of lithotripters in current use in hospitals. The Department’s intervention and effective use of the threat of Crown Use ensured both prompt resolution and continuity of use of essential health care equipment in the NHS. 30. In 1986, the Home Office invoked Crown Use in order to be able to use genetic identification techniques in the forensic science service. The technique was still new, and, although there was an urgent operational need to use it, the patent holder was not yet in a position to supply. Subsequent negotiations led to an agreement for the future use of the technique in the forensic science service. Draft EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions. 31. The Council reached a Common Position on the Directive in February 1994 by a qualified majority. The Common Position included a number of provisions intended to go as far as the Council felt able to meet amendments adopted by the European Parliament at its first reading. The principal amendments were: a. Patents should not be granted for the human body or parts of the body as such. A recital made it clear that “as such” when applied to things like genes, proteins or cells meant when they were present in the body and there was to be no ban on patenting of such material which had been isolated from the body. b. Patents should not be granted for inventions which would cause suffering or physical handicaps to animals without substantial benefit to man or animals. c. Farmers should have a limited right to save seed plants covered by a patent to sow on their own holding. 32. At second reading, the Parliament adopted three amendments to the recitals, one of which would have meant that material isolated from the human body would not be patentable on account of its human origin. Since the Council could not accept this amendment a Concilation Committee of the Parliament and the Council was convened. The Committee agreed a text of the recital according to which inventions including industrially applicable parts obtained from the human body by a technical process such that they are no longer ascribed to a specific individual cannot be excluded from patentability on account of the human origin of the parts. This text still has to be approved by the Council and the Parliament. Examination of Witnesses Mr PAuL HaARTNACK, Comptroller-General, MR DEREK Woop and Mr Cepric Hoptrorr, the Patent Office, examined. Principal Examiner responsible for the examining group of our specialists who look at patents in this area and therefore on patent practice perhaps you Chairman 293. Thank you for coming, you are most welcome. Thank you for responding to our invitation to come and give oral evidence on behalf of the Patent Office on these rather important issues. The Committee are all named, as you see. Is there any statement that you want to make on anything before we start or may we commence the range of questions? (Mr Hartnack) Mr Chairman, perhaps I may just say a few words. 294. Yes, please do. (Mr Hartnack) 1 am the Comptroller-General of the Patent Office and Cedric Hoptroff is the Principal Examiner responsible for international relations and for general policy on patents and therefore on detail on that kind of issue I hope you will agree that he should answer, Mr Chairman. Derek Wood is the would allow him to answer, Mr Chairman. 295. Splendid, thank you very much, Mr Hartnack, for that information. If I may just start off, Mr Hartnack, I think probably to you yourself as head of the Patent Office, are most patents now filed at the European Patent Office rather than in the United Kingdom and, if not, is it possible to distinguish separately the type of patent application which does go to the European Patent Office and the type that will come to you? (Mr Hartnack) The European Patent Office has been going since 1978. Over the last 15 years about 80 per cent of the overseas demand that we were taking from companies in, say, the United States, Japan and Australia in 1978 now goes to the European Patent