Footnotes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

[1]        Association of Medical Pathology and Others v The United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics, Inc and Others (the MPO case).

[2]        Draft Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3.

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

[1]        Following the restructuring of Senate Committees on 13 May 2009, the inquiry was continued by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee.

[2]        The terms of reference for the inquiry, as well as submissions and other information on the Committee, is available from the Committee's website at https://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/gene_patents/index.htm.

[3]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 5.

CHAPTER 2 - BACKGROUND TO THE INQUIRY

[1]        The discussion of the patent system in this chapter is not intended to provide an exhaustive description of the patent system, but focuses on those aspects that are most relevant to the issues raised in evidence to the inquiry.

[2]        Associate Professor Judy Kirk, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 50.

[3]        Professor Stephen Fox, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, pp 119-120.

[4]        Genetic Technologies Limited website, 'A report to shareholders', 9 July 2003, http://www.gtg.com.au/index.asp?menuid=060.070.130.010&artid=98 (accessed 7 October 2009).

[5]        Genetic Technologies Limited website, 'New position re BRCA testing', 2 December 2008, http://www.gtg.com.au/index.asp?menuid=060.070.130&artid=10748&function=NewsArticle (accessed 7 October 2009).

[6]        Dr Gerard Cudmore, Office for Science and Medical Research, Department of Industry and Investment, New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 91.

[7]        Mr Chris Reid, Department of Health and Ageing, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 45.

[8]        Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, correspondence dated 16 October 2009, p. 2.

[9]        Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, p. 377.

[10]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, p. 53, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[11]      Patents Act 1990, section 67.

[12]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 19 March 2009, p. 3. For a brief overview of the historical development of the patent system see Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, pp 378-381.

[13]      Patents Act 1990, Schedule 1, Dictionary, p. 160.

[14]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, p. 55, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[15]      Patents Act 1990, sections 133 and 163. The Act also contains provisions under which the Governor-General may direct that a patent or invention that is the subject of a patent application be acquired by the Commonwealth (for payment of compensation). These provisions were not addressed in the submissions and evidence to the inquiry and are not discussed further in this report.

[16]      The requirements discussed here are not exhaustive but focus on those aspects of patent law that are most relevant to the issues raised by the inquiry.

[17]      Patents Act 1990, section (18)(1)(a).

[18]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

[19]      Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, p. 377.

[20]      The Statute of Monopolies may be understood as the originator of modern patent law statutes.

[21]      Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, p. 409.

[22]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, p. 118, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[23]      (1959) 102 CLR 252.

[24]      Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, pp 408-9.

[25]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, p. 118, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[26]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 13.

[27]      Section 18(2) and (3). The second limitation applies in respect of innovation patents, a form of patent not further discussed in this report. For further information on innovation patents see IP Australia website, http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what_innovation.shtml (accessed 10 September 2009).

[28]      See for example Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 25 IPR 119, 151 (Gummow J); and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Company Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524.

[29]      Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, p. 410. For further discussion of the development of exclusions in the Patents Act 1990 see Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p. 25.

[30]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 13.

[31]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 34.

[32]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 16.

[33]      Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, p. 377.

[34]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: towards a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', March 2009, p. 10.

[35]      See Patents Act 1990, sections 20 and 21.

[36]      Patents Act 1990, sections 59 and 60.

[37]      Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 6.

[38]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 17.

[39]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 17.

[40]      South Australian Government, Submission 16, p. 5.

[41]      Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, pp 83-84.

[42]      Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 87.

[43]      Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 87.

[44]      Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 16.

[45]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 13.

[46]      Cancer Voices Australia & Anor v Myriad Genetics Inc & Ors, Federal Court of Australia, NSD643/2010, available at https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD643/2010/actions.

[47]      Mark J Davison, Anne L Monotti and Leanne Wiseman, Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2008, p. 399.

[48]      See Patents Act 1990, sections 97, 97(2) and 97(4).

[49]      Patents Act 1990, sections 98(1) and (2). This effectively means that the only grounds available for refusing to grant or revoking the grant of a patent on re-examination are lack of novelty and/or inventive step.

[50]      Patents Act 1990, sections 100(3) and 101(4).

[51]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 16.

[52]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, p. 87, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[53]      The following discussion of international agreements is largely based on Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, pp 88-93, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[54]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, pp 88-93, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[55]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, p. 94, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html. These amendments were passed in the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 2004.

[56]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, June 2004, p. 94, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[57]      Industrial Property Advisory Committee, Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia, August 1984, available at http://www.acip.gov.au/library/Patents,%20Innovation%20and%20Competition%20in%20Australia.pdf.

[58]      Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, Review of intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principle Agreement, September 2000, p. 6.

[59]      Parliamentary Library, 'Patents Amendment Bill 2001', Bill Digest No. 1 2001-02, available at https://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BD/2001-02/02bd001.htm.

[60]      Available at http://www.acip.gov.au/reviews_completed.html#enforce.

[61]      Parliamentary Library, 'Patents Amendment Bill 2001', Bill Digest No. 1 2001-02, available at https://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BD/2001-02/02bd001.htm.

[62]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 2.

[63]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 2.

[64]      The full list of the ALRC's recommendations can be viewed via the ALRC web site at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[65]      These reports are available from Advisory Council on Intellectual Property web site at http://www.acip.gov.au/reviews_completed.html#crownuse.

[66]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property web site, http://www.acip.gov.au/reviews.html#subject (accessed 29 September 2009).

[67]      For information on the innovation review see http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx.

[68]      IP Australia, 'Getting the Balance Right', Consultation Paper March 2009, available at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/news/ip_reforms_balance.pdf; IP Australia, 'Exemptions to Patent Infringement', Consultation Paper, March 2009, available at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/news/ip_reforms_exemptions.pdf.

[69]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

CHAPTER 3 - THE IMPACT OF GENE PATENTS

[1]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 37.

[2]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 37.

[3]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, pp 26-27.

[4]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 7.

[5]        Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society, Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests, April 2010, pp 13-14.

[6]        Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society, Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests, April 2010, p. 14.

[7]        Ms Lexie Press, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 34; IP Australia, clarification of evidence, 7 September 2009, p. 1. The 'priority date' is the date on which a patent application was first filed.

[8]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, pp 25-26.

[9]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 26.

[10]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 28.

[11]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 2.

[12]      Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p. 37.

[13]      IP Australia, IP Australia response to Senator the Hon Heffernan's submission, p. 5 (and see IP Australia, Correction to IP Australia response to Senator the Hon Heffernan's submission, p. 1).

[14]      IP Australia, IP Australia response to Senator the Hon Heffernan's submission, p. 5 (and see IP Australia, Correction to IP Australia response to Senator the Hon Heffernan's submission, p. 1).

[15]      Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p. 37.

[16]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 2.

[17]      Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Submission 36, p. 6.

[18]      Dr Kwanghui Lim, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 4.

[19]      Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p.35.

[20]      Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p.45.

[21]      Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 2.

[22]      Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p. 39.

[23]      Industrial Property Advisory Committee, Patents, Innovations and Competition in Australia, 1984, Recommendation 46.

[24]      Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 448.

[25]      Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, pp 451-456.

[26]      Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan, Submission 76, p. 72.

[27]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, 2004, pp 465 and 489.

[28]      Royal Society of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 3.

[29]      Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 62, p. 2.

[30]      Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, Report of the Australian Genetic Testing Survey 2006, pp 15 -17; Medical Technology Association of Australia, Submission 43, p. 1.

[31]      Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Submission 28, p. 5.

[32]      Cancer Council Australia, Submission 50, pp 5-6.

[33]      NSW Government, Submission 54, p. 5.

[34]      Medical Technology Association of Australia, Submission 43, p. 4.

[35]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2010, p. 37.

[36]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Submission 4; answer to question on notice, 2 April 2009, p. 5.

[37]      Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, pp 8-11.

[38]      Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 9.

[39]      South Australian Government, Submission 16, p. 8.

[40]      Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p 11.

[41]      Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p 14.

[42]      Dr Jennifer Leary, Submission 39, p. 4.

[43]      Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Submission 33, pp 1-2.

[44]      Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Submission 33, pp 1-2.

[45]      Victorian Government, Submission 61, p. 2.

[46]      South Australian Government, Submission 16, p. 8.

[47]      New South Wales Government, Submission 54, p. 5.

[48]      Cancer Council Australia, Submission 50, p. 6.

[49]      Breast Cancer Network Australia, Submission 47, p. 3.

[50]      Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Submission 28, p. 5; See also Dr Jennifer Leary, Submission 39, p. 4.

[51]      Breast Cancer Action Group NSW, Submission 30, p. 1.

[52]      Dr Jennifer Leary, Submission 39, p. 4.

[53]      Associate Professor Judy Kirk, Submission 9, p. 2.

[54]      Ms Heather Drum, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 89.

[55]      Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 62, p. 2.

[56]      IP Australia, Submission 19; and supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 2.

[57]      IP Australia, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 2.

[58]      Genetic Technologies Ltd, Submission 24, p. 6.

[59]      Genetic Technologies Ltd, Submission 24, p. 6.

[60]      Genetic Technologies Ltd, Submission 24, p. 6.

[61]      Genetic Technologies Ltd, Submission 24, p. 5.

[62]      Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, Public consultation draft report on gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests, March 2009, p. 98.

[63]      Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, Public consultation draft report on gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests, March 2009, p. 98.

[64]      Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, Public consultation draft report on gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests, March 2009, p. 108.

[65]      Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, Gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests, April 2010, pp 3-4.

[66]      Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies Australia, Submission 44, p. 11.

[67]      Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, Submission 31, p. 5.

[68]      Professor Dianne Nicol and Dr Jane Nielsen, Submission 23, p. 7.

[69]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 29.

[70]      IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 8.

[71]      Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, Submission 31, p. 12.

[72]      Victorian Government, Submission 61, p. 2.

[73]      Law Council of Australia, Submission 57, p. 1.

[74]      Professor Dianne Nicol and Dr Jane Nielsen, Submission 23, p. 5.

[75]      Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan, Submission 76, p. 8

[76]      Cancer Council Australia, Submission 50, p. 7.

[77]      Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 13.

[78]      Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Submission 28, pp 2-3.

[79]      Dr Jennifer Leary, Submission 39, p. 7.

[80]      For example Cancer Voice NSW, Submission 47, p. 2.

[81]      NSW Government, Submission 54, p. 5.

[82]      Victorian Government, Submission 61, p. 3.

[83]      Professor Ian Olver, Cancer Council Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 29.

[84]      Associate Professor Judy Kirk, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 79.

[85]      Mrs Kristi Smith, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, pp 84-85; Ms Heather Drum, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, pp 85-89.

[86]      Breast Cancer Network Australia, Submission 48, p. 5.

[87]      Country Women's Association of NSW, Submission 35, p. 4.

[88]      Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Submission 33, p. 3.

[89]      Dr Jennifer Leary, Submission 39, p. 7.

[90]      For example, Dr Gillian Mitchell, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 104.

[91]      Professor Ron Trent, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 76.

[92]      Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, Gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests, April 2010, p. 3.

[93]      Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 62, p. 3.

[94]      Medical Technology Association of Australia, Submission 43, p. 4; Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 62, p. 4.

[95]      Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 62, p. 4.

[96]      Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 62, p. 4.

[97]      Davies Collison Cave, Submission 27, p.7; Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, Submission 31, p. 9.

[98]      Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Submission 26, p. 13.

[99]      Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Submission 33, p. 3.

[100]    Victorian Government, Submission 61, p. 3.

[101]    Cancer Council Australia, Submission 50, p. 7.

[102]    National Coalition of Public Pathology, Submission 40, pp 2-3.

[103]    Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 12.

[104]    For example, NSW Government, Submission 54, p. 5.

[105]    Associate Professor Judy Kirk, Submission 9, p. 2.

[106]    Dr Jennifer Leary, Submission 39, p. 5.

[107]    Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 12.

[108]    Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 12.

[109]    Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 7.

[110]    Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 6.

[111]    FB Rice & Co., Submission 34, p. 1.

[112]    For example, Genetic Technologies, Submission 24, p. 4.

[113]    Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes, Submission 72, p. 2.

[114]    Dr Julian Clark, Walter and Eliza Hall Medical Research Institute, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 56; Walter and Eliza Hall Medical Research Institute, answer to question on notice, received 3 August 2009, p. 1.

[115]    Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Submission 26, pp 3-5.

[116]    See, for example, Biotechnology Industry Organisation, Submission 28, pp 1-2.

[117]    Ms Deborah Monk, Medicines Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 32.

[118]    Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 8.

[119]    Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies Australia, Submission 45, p. 10.

[120]    Genetic Technologies Ltd, Submission 24, p. 4.

[121]    Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 9.

[122]    Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Submission 36, p. 5; Joshua Gans and Scott Stern, 'The Product Market and the Market for "Ideas": Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs', 2003, vol. 32, Research Policy, p. 333.

[123]    National Health and Medical Research Council, Report on the operations of the NHNRC: Strategic Plan 2007-2009, p. 77.

[124]    Ms Sally Crossing, Cancer Voice NSW, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, pp 2-3.

[125]    Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, Gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests, April 2010, p. 3.

[126]    Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan, Submission 76, p. 16.

[127]    Dr Kwanghui Lim, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 3.

[128]    Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, pp 43-44.

[129]    Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, pp 43-44.

[130]    Professor Ian Olver, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 8.

[131]    Dr Anne Ronan, Submission 3, p. 2.

[132]    Dr Anne Ronan, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 64.

[133]    Michael Heller, 'Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research', 1998, vol. 280, Science, p. 698.

[134]    Professor Dianne Nicol and Dr Jane Nielsen, Submission 23, p. 8.

[135]    Professor Dianne Nicol and Dr Jane Nielsen, Submission 23, p. 10.

[136]    Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 40.

[137]    Associate Professor Beth Webster, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, pp 9-10.

[138]    Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Submission 26, pp 8-9.

[139]    Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 28.

[140]    Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 18.

[141]    Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 450.

[142]    Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 87.

[143]    Mr John Slattery, Davies Collison Cave, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 10; Mr Richard Jarvis, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 88.

[144]    Davies Collison Cave, Submission 27, p. 7.

[145]    Ms Naomi Hawkins, Submission 22, p. 3.

[146]    Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, pp 15-16.

[147]    Cancer Council Australia, Submission 50, p. 7.

[148]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, Report 99, 2004, pp 305 & 309.

[149]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health, Report 99, 2004, p. 307.

[150]    Professor David Bowtell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, pp 114-115.

[151]    Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 29.

[152]    Professor Dianne Nicol, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 28.

[153]    Pfizer Australia, Submission 51, p. 10.

[154]    Pfizer Australia, Submission 51, p. 10.

[155]    Ms Janet Green, Breast Cancer Action Group, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 3.

[156]    Breast Cancer Network Australia, Submission 48, p. 4.

[157]    Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Submission 33, p. 2; NSW Government, Submission 54, p. 5.

[158]    Dr Jennifer Leary, Submission 39, p. 4.

[159]    Dr Luigi Palombi, Submission 4, Part 2, p. 42.

[160]    Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 13.

[161]    Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Submission 33, p. 2.

[162]    Ms Heather Drum, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 89.

[163]    Ms Heather Drum, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 89.

[164]    South Australian Government, Submission 16, p. 10.

[165]    Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Submission 26, p. 5.

[166]    Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Submission 26, p. 8.

[167]    Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Submission 36, p. 7.

[168]    See, for example, Mr John Slattery, Davies Collison Cave, 4 August 2009, Committee Hansard, p. 10.

[169]    Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 31.

[170]    Davies Collison Cave, Submission 27, p. 8.

[171]    Tasmanian Government, Submission 53, p. 1.

[172]    Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 8.

[173]    Paul Jensen et al, Estimating the Patent Premium: Evidence from the Australia Inventor Survey, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Working Paper 11/09, May 2009, p. 25.

[174]    Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, Submission 31, p. 12.

[175]    Genetic Technologies Ltd, Submission 24, p. 6.

[176]    Dr Belinda Coyte, Submission 55, p. 2; Dr Belinda Coyte, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, pp 93-96.

[177]    Ms Trish Carey, Submission 56, p. 1.

[178]    Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 23.

[179]    Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 47.

[180]    Breast Cancer Network Australia, Submission 48, p. 6.

[181]    Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 62, p. 4.

[182]    Mr John Slattery, Davies Collison Cave, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 29.

[183]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, 2004, pp 470-472.

[184]    Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p. 39.

[185]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, June 2004, p. 472.

CHAPTER 4 - EXPRESS PROHIBITION OF GENE PATENTS

[1]        Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, June 2004, p. 170.

[2]        Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, June 2004, p. 170.

[3]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

[4]        (1959) 102 CLR 252.

[5]        Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, June 2004, p. 120.

[6]        Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 2.

[7]        Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 2.

[8]        Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 3.

[9]        Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, pp 3-4.

[10]      Dr Hazel Moir, Submission 20, p. 7.

[11]      Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 9.

[12]      Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 428.

[13]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 13.

[14]      Professor Ian Olver, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 1.

[15]      Genomics Law Report website, 'Pigs fly: Federal Court invalidates Myriad's patent claims', 30 March 2010, http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/30/pigs-fly-federal-court-invalidates-myriads-patent-claims/ (accessed 20 August 2010).

[16]      Association of Medical Pathology and Others v The United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics, Inc and Others, pp 3-4.

[17]      Association of Medical Pathology and Others v The United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics, Inc and Others, p. 4.

[18]      For example, central to the question of patentability under Australian law is whether an invention may be said to be a 'manner of manufacture'. Similarly, section 101 of the US Patent Act, which sets out the categories of patentable subject matter, states that any 'useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof' may be patented. In both jurisdictions, natural phenomena and abstract mental process (such as theories) per se are not patentable subject matter.

[19]      US Patent and Trademark Office, Correspondence to Senate Community Affairs References Committee, 8 July 2010.

[20]      Draft Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3.

[21]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, June 2004, p. 122.

[22]      IP Australia, Patent examiners manual, 2.9.2.5, http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patentsmanual/WebHelp/Patent_Examiners_Manual.htm (accessed 6 October 2009).

[23]      National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 264.

[24]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 19 March 2009, p. 4.

[25]      IP Australia, Patent examiners manual, 2.9.2.5, http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patentsmanual/WebHelp/Patent_Examiners_Manual.htm (accessed 6 October 2009).

[26]      IP Australia, 'Australian patents for biological inventions', http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patents/specific/biotech.pdf (accessed 6 October 2009).

[27]      Ms Lexie Press, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 19 March 2009, p. 15.

[28]      Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 79.

[29]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 19 March 2009, p. 4.

[30]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 7.

[31]      Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 2.

[32]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, pp 10-11.

[33]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 9.

[34]      Professor Ian Olver, Cancer Council Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 18.

[35]      Professor David Bowtell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 105.

[36]      Senate the Hon. Bill Heffernan, Submission 76, p. 36.

[37]      Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 1.

[38]      Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 8.

[39]      Medicines Australia, Submission 21, p. 1.

[40]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 13.

[41]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, pp 27-28.

[42]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 19 March 2009, p. 4.

[43]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, pp 27-28.

[44]      See for example, Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan, Submission 76, pp 6-27; Committee Hansard, 15 June 2010, pp 1-8; and IP Australia, Response to Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan's submission no 76, pp 1-3.

[45]      Dr Gillian Mitchell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 105.

[46]      Ms Sally Crossing, Cancer Voices NSW, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 2.

[47]      Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, pp 40-41.

[48]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 19 March 2009, p. 4.

[49]      National Health and Medical Research Council, Submission 12, p. 19.

[50]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 35.

[51]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 23.

[52]      Law Council of Australia, Submission 57, p. 2.

[53]      Dr Gerard Cudmore, Department of Industry and Investment (NSW), Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 88.

[54]      Dr Anna Ronan, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 68.

[55]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 12.

[56]      Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan, Submission 76, p. 39.

[57]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 30.

[58]      Arguments about the impacts of gene patents on healthcare, medical research and human wellbeing are discussed in Chapter 3.

[59]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 3.

[60]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, June 2004, p. 130.

[61]      Medicines Australia, answer to question on notice, 25 September 2009, p. 1.

[62]      Xenome Ltd, Submission 70, p. 2.

[63]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 2.

[64]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 18.

[65]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 18.

[66]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 2.

[67]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 4.

[68]      Pfizer Australia, Submission 51, p. 3.

[69]      Dr Trevor Davies, Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 8.

[70]      Pfizer Australia, Submission 51, p. 3.

[71]      IP Australia, Submission 18, p. 4.

[72]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 31.

[73]      Mr John Slattery, Davies Collison Cave, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 9.

[74]      Pfizer Australia, Submission 51, p. 3.

[75]      Dr Chris Dent, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 7.

[76]      Professor Andrew Christie, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 68.

[77]      Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 4.

[78]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity, June 2004, p. 130.

[79]      Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 75.

[80]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia , Submission 19, p. 10.

[81]      Mr John Slattery, Davies Collison Cave, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 2.

[82]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 1.

[83]      Ms Deborah Monk, Medicines Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 35.

[84]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', p. 29.

[85]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 23. See also Mr John Slattery, Davies Collison Cave, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 2.

[86]      TRIPS Agreement, article 27(1).

[87]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 10.

[88]      Law Council of Australia, Submission 57, p. 1.

[89]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 91, available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc99/index.html.

[90]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 22.

[91]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 26.

[92]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia Submission 19, p. 24.

[93]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia Submission 19, p. 24.

[94]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 2.

[95]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 22.

[96]      Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 22.

[97]      Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Submission 49, p. 7.

[98]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 24.

[99]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, pp 24-25.

[100]    Professor Dianne Nicol and Dr Jane Nielsen, Submission 23, p. 3.

[101]    Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologist of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 50.

[102]    Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 3.

[103]    Dr Kwanghui Lim, Committee Hansard, 3 August 2009, p. 5.

[104]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 2.

[105]    Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 14.

[106]    Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics, Submission 37, p. 2.

[107]    Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 12.

[108]    Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 15.

[109]    Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia Submission 19, p. 4.

[110]    Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 19 March 2009, p. 5.

[111]    Mr John Slattery, Davies Collison Cave, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 1.

[112]    Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 8.

[113]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 124.

[114]    The Association of Medical Pathology and Others v The United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics, Inc and Others, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 09 Civ. 4515, p. 83.

[115]    Maurice Blackburn Lawyers website, 'Biotech monopoly on cancer genes is unlawful: Australian test case over patents', 8 June 2010, available at http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/news/press-releases--announcements/biotech-company-monopoly-on-cancer-genes-is-unlawful-australian-test-case-over-patents.aspx (accessed 20 August 2010).

CHAPTER 5 - MEASURES TO AMELIORATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS OF GENE PATENTS

[1]        Ms Deborah Monk, Medicines Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 31.

[2]        Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 13.

[3]        Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 2.

[4]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

[5]        Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 9.

[6]        Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 132.

[7]        Advisory Council on Intellectual Property web site, http://www.acip.gov.au/reviews.html#subject (accessed 29 September 2009).

[8]        Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 7.

[9]        Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 8. Professor Christie is the Chair of the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property review of patentable subject matter. Professor Christie appeared before the inquiry in a private capacity.

[10]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 5.

[11]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 5.

[12]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 5

[13]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 7.

[14]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 7.

[15]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 11.

[16]      Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 41.

[17]      Dr Hazel Moir, answer to question on notice, 16 September 2009, p. 3.

[18]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 20.

[19]      Chapter 4 considers the specific issue of whether the Act should contain a specific exclusion, or express prohibition, on gene patents.

[20]      The options paper notes, however, that the 'meaning and ongoing application of 'generally inconvenient' is unclear' (p. 16).

[21]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 18.

[22]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 18.

[23]      Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 8.

[24]      Law Council of Australia, Submission 57, p. 2.

[25]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 12.

[26]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 22.

[27]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 22.

[28]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 13.

[29]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 13.

[30]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 9.

[31]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 10.

[32]      Dr Hazel Moir, answer to question on notice, 16 September 2009, p. 2.

[33]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 11.

[34]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 11.

[35]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 11.

[36]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 11.

[37]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 11.

[38]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 13.

[39]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 12.

[40]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 13.

[41]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', IP Australia Consultation Paper, March 2009, p. 12.

[42]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 51.

[43]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 21.

[44]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 20.

[45]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 143.

[46]      Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 5.

[47]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 143.i

[48]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 144.

[49]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 144.

[50]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 20.

[51]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, Recommendation 6-3, p. 157.

[52]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 21.

[53]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 23.

[54]      IP Australia, Submission 19, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 5.

[55]      See, for example, Professor Ian Olver, Chief Executive Officer, Cancer Council Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 10.

[56]      Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 5.

[57]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 30.

[58]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 32.

[59]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 23.

[60]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 36.

[61]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 13.

[62]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', March 2009, p. 6.

[63]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', March 2009, p. 7.

[64]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', March 2009, pp 7-8.

[65]      IP Australia, 'Getting the balance right: toward a stronger and more efficient IP rights system', March 2009, p. 8.

[66]      IP Australia, Submission 19, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 5.

[67]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 30.

[68]      Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, Review of Crown use provisions for patents and designs, November 2005, p. 1.

[69]      Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, p. 6.

[70]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 30.

[71]      Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 22.

[72]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 30.

[73]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 34.

[74]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 22.

[75]      Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, pp 5-6.

[76]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 29. As well as showing the reasonable requirements of the public have not been met the applicant must show that the patentee has no satisfactory reason for failing to exploit the patent; and that the applicant has tried unsuccessfully to obtain a licence from the patentee (see section 133(2)(a)(i)-(iii)).

[77]      Patents Act 1990, section 135(1)(a)(i) and (iv).

[78]      Dr Charles Lawson, Submission 5, p. 1.

[79]      Dr Charles Lawson, Submission 5, Attachment 1, p. 3.

[80]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Submission 18, p. 2.

[81]      Professor Ron Trent, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 53.

[82]      Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 41.

[83]      Dr Gillian Mitchell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, pp 116-117.

[84]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 22.

[85]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 22.

[86]      Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and IP Australia, Submission 19, p. 10.

[87]      Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 29.

[88]      Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 86.

[89]      Dr Charles Lawson, Submission 5, p. i.

[90]      Dr Charles Lawson, Submission 5, Attachment 1, p. 1.

[91]      Dr Charles  Lawson, Submission 5, Attachment 1, pp 31-32.

[92]      Dr Charles Lawson, Submission 5, Attachment 1, p. 3.

[93]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 14.

[94]      Dr Matthew Rimmer, 'The alchemy of junk: patent law and non-coding DNA', Intellectual property and biotechnology, p. 234 (2008).

[95]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 34.

[96]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 34.

[97]      Review of property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement, 30 September 2000, p. 6, cited in Parliamentary Library, 'Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006', Bills Digest No. 159 2005-06, 19 June 2006, p. 9.

[98]      Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 619.

[99]      Parliamentary Library, 'Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006', Bills Digest No. 159 2005-06, 19 June 2006, p. 12.

[100]    Dr Charles Lawson, Submission 5, Attachment 2, p. 25.

[101]    Dr Charles Lawson, Submission 5, Attachment 2, p. 5.

[102]    Dr Matthew Rimmer,'The alchemy of junk: patent law and non-coding DNA', Intellectual property and biotechnology (2008), p. 238.

[103]    Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 22.

[104]    IP Australia, 'Exemptions to patent infringement', Consultation paper, March 2009, p. 3.

[105]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 331.

[106]    Dr Gerard Cudmore, Department of Industry and Investment (NSW), Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 92.

[107]    Professor Andrew Christie, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 69.

[108]    Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, pp 6-7.

[109]    Mr Richard Hamer, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 80.

[110]    Dr Gerard Cudmore, Department of Industry and Investment (NSW), Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 93-94.

[111]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, p. 335.

[112]    Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 13.

[113]    Victorian Government, Submission 61, p. 2.

[114]    Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patents and experimental use', October 2005, p. 5.

[115]    Dr Clive Morris, National Health and Medical Research Council, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 48.

[116]    Cancer Council Australia, Submission 50, p. 8.

[117]    IP Australia, 'Exemptions to patent infringement', Consultation paper, March 2009, p. 5

[118]    Mrs Fatima Beattie, IP Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 30.

[119]    Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 8.

[120]    Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 18.

[121]    Dr Matthew Rimmer, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 13.

[122]    Dr Hazel Moir, answer to question on notice, 16 September 2009, p. 8.

[123]    Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 21.

[124]    Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 21.

[125]    Dr Hazel Moir, answer to question on notice, 16 September 2009, p. 7.

[126]    Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 21.

[127]    Dr Hazel Moir, answer to question on notice, 16 September 2009, p. 2.

[128]    Dr Hazel Moir, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 4.

[129]    Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 60.

[130]    South Australian Government, Submission 16, p. 4.

[131]    IP Australia, Submission 19, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 5.

[132]    Professor Andrew Christie, Submission 38, pp 5-6.

[133]    Mrs Jennifer West, Australian Marfan Foundation, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 99.

[134]    Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 56.

[135]    Professor David Bowtell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 130.

[136]    Dr Graeme Suthers, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 41.

[137]    Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 427.

[138]    Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 428.

[139]    Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 429.

[140]    Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 431.

[141]    Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 431.

[142]    Professor Ian Olver, Cancer Council Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 August 2009, p. 6.

[143]    Dr Luigi Palombi, Committee Hansard, 14 September 2009, p. 13.

[144]    Professor Peter Drahos, Submission 60, p. 439.

[145]    Professor Peter Drahos, Committee Hansard, 20 August 2009, p. 15.

[146]    Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 21.

[147]    Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 53.

[148]    Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, 'Patentable subject matter: options paper', September 2009, p. 53.

[149]    South Australian Government, Submission 16, p. 5.

[150]    IP Australia, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 3.

[151]    Dr Trevor Davies, Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2009, p. 35.

[152]    IP Australia, Submission 19, supplementary submission, 30 September 2009, p. 4.

[153]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, Recommendations 6-3 to 6-4, pp 130-157.

[154]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, Recommendations 26-1 to 26-3, p 608.

[155]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, Recommendations 26-1 to 27-1, p 625.

[156]    IP Australia, 'Exemptions to patent infringement', March 2009, p. 5.

[157]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, pp 473-474 (Recommendation 19-2).

[158]    Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and ingenuity, June 2004, pp 473-474.