A new report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has argued that the government should not allow chemical companies to use the intellectual property of Canadian scientists to patent their own products.
The report, “Trading in Science: The Role of Chemical Intellectual Property in Canadian Science Policy,” looks at the situation of Canadian research institutes and universities that have come under fire for allowing foreign firms to patent and commercialize their work.
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), which is a federally funded research institution, was recently caught using a patent granted to the Swiss chemical company, BASF, to patent a molecule it developed in its own laboratory.
CIHR has refused to hand over the patent, citing the “national security implications.”
It also sued several of the world’s leading chemical companies, accusing them of using its patents to threaten its competitors.
The companies have denied using their patents to promote their products.”CIHR’s patent application is in violation of the Canadian Intellectual Property Act, which requires the granting of patent applications in the public interest,” CIHR spokesperson Scott Beyer said in a statement to CBC News.
“We are challenging the patent application because it fails to disclose that its application was made without public notice.
The Canadian Chemical Society, the industry association for chemical companies and research institutions, also rejected the claim, stating that the CIHR patent application “has no scientific basis” and has been used to “defend a foreign competitor’s patent.””
The Canadian Centre has long supported research funding for Canada’s science institutions and has long opposed granting foreign companies access to Canadian intellectual property.”
The Canadian Chemical Society, the industry association for chemical companies and research institutions, also rejected the claim, stating that the CIHR patent application “has no scientific basis” and has been used to “defend a foreign competitor’s patent.”
A spokesperson for CIHR said the company has no plans to challenge the patent.
“The CIHR application is based on a highly flawed premise, which is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a monopoly on the chemical patent, which they claim to be in effect, as the CIHS application has no scientific rationale,” the spokesperson said in an email.
“While we have no reason to doubt that the USPTO’s claims of patenting the US patent are in fact a sham, we are concerned about the CIHSA’s use of the CI Hase patent application as a pretext to attack USPTSE patents.”
The CIHASE patent has been around since the early 1980s, and has since been used by several chemical companies including BASF and Monsanto.
In a statement, Monsanto said that it has “strong confidence” in its patent, and is “very proud” of its ability to patent the compound.
“Monsanto is committed to continuing to defend and defend the patents that we hold and defend, including against the threat of a potential U.N. tribunal, which could effectively ban all such patents, Monsanto spokesperson Brian McQuaid said in the statement.”
This case is not about patenting.
The government is not trying to patent anything.
We believe we have a right to use and sell patented products, and we have always done that.
We look forward to continuing our legal battle with the government over its patent infringement.”BASF spokesperson David Aylward said that the company does not intend to challenge a patent application, and added that the Canadian Institute of Biomedical Sciences (CIBS) is also “not at liberty to defend any patents in the CIHLSA patent.””
The CCS also sent a letter to the Canadian Patent and Trade Office, asking it to stop issuing patents on the CIHTASE patent, arguing that the patent is invalid.”
In terms of the issue of patent law, there is no such thing as patent monopolies, and there should be no such rights whatsoever.”
The CCS also sent a letter to the Canadian Patent and Trade Office, asking it to stop issuing patents on the CIHTASE patent, arguing that the patent is invalid.
The CIHS said it will appeal the patent decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and said it plans to fight the patent in court.
“In the interim, the CIHCAS will continue to defend its patents in all courts of Canada and will continue vigorously to promote and protect Canadian science and innovation,” the CIHD said in its statement.
Follow Elizabeth Landau on Twitter: @ElizabethLandau