Life-form patents not allowed under existing law: ruling

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: December 12, 2002

Canada’s Supreme Court has thrown back to the politicians the issue of

whether genetically modified plants and animals can be patented.

On Dec. 5, the court ruled by a 5-4 margin that existing Canadian

patent laws do not allow intellectual property rights for creation of

“higher life forms.”

But the justices made clear they were not commenting on the moral and

ethical issues raised by the life-patenting debate. They simply were

ruling that existing legislation did not allow it because animals did

Read Also

Spencer Harris (green shirt) speaks with attendees at the Nutrien Ag Solutions crop plots at Ag in Motion on July 16, 2025. Photo: Greg Berg

Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow

It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…

not meet the legal definition of products or processes covered.

“Patenting higher life forms would involve a radical departure from the

traditional patent regime,” wrote the Supreme Court majority.

“If higher life forms are to be patentable, it must be under the clear

and unequivocal direction of Parliament.”

The court pointed to plant breeders’ rights legislation as a possible

model for dealing with the issue outside the patent act.

The court judgment, which marked the end of a 17-year attempt by

Harvard University to win a Canadian patent for a GM mouse developed in

the early 1980s as a subject for cancer research, launched a fierce

political debate.

The national biotechnology lobby Bio-teCanada said it would kill the

incentive for companies to invest in Canada by making patents

questionable. The Harvard mouse has been patented in the United States,

the European Union, Japan and other countries.

“This decision stops our pursuit of knowledge and innovation dead in

our tracks,” said BioteCanada president Janet Lambert. “Today’s

decision destroys our Canadian infrastructure of knowledge and

innovation, creates an even greater brain drain and we will lose our

place at the world table in influencing how and where society accepts

this technology.”

Opponents of life-form patenting, including anti-biotech campaigners

and a coalition of Canadian churches, were ecstatic.

“This is a victory for life. Parliament should resist pressure that

will undoubtedly now come from the biotech industry,” said Joanne Dufay

of Greenpeace Canada. “Life forms are not light bulbs and mammals are

not machines.”

At the University of Saskatchewan, biotech researcher Peter Phillips

said the truth lies somewhere between those two positions.

The Supreme Court decision sends a “symbolic” message that might

influence some investment decisions, but it is not the death knell of

biotech research.

“At the margins and in some specific areas, some companies may be

inclined to debate if they want to invest research dollars here,” he

said Dec. 6. “But my guess is this is more symbolic than practically a

problem.”

Phillips, a member of the government’s Canadian Biotechnology Advisory

Committee that has supported patenting higher life forms, noted that

under international rules, Canada still must find a way to allow

companies to protect the intellectual property rights of their

inventions.

explore

Stories from our other publications