Australia: Genes ruled unpatentable by High Court

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Australia: Genes ruled unpatentable by High Court

The High Court in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics [2015] HCA 35 has unanimously found that isolated naturally-occurring nucleic acids coding for mutant or polymorphic genes does did not amount to patentable subject matter in Australia.

The Court overturned the findings of all the lower courts judges and diverged from its own expansive earlier authorities on patentable subject matter, preferring instead to follow US Supreme Court authority on the same case.

The court used emotive arguments in attacking the claim breadth. The majority citing "the chilling effect of the claims ... which would lead to the creation of an exorbitant and unwarranted de facto monopoly…". The jurisprudential reasons for having the patent system and the patentee's right to the broadest possible claim were not given significance.

The basis of rejection of the patent further included "the far reaching questions of public policy ... best left for legislative determination". The Court failed to recognise that its own actions are likely to lead to confusion and uncertainty as to the metes and bounds of the "new gene" patent exclusion.

In a manner reminiscent of US Supreme Court practice, a number of judges also incorporated obviousness arguments into the concept of patentable subject matter.

Of course, the net effect is that it is now more difficult to obtain protection for innovative research in the genetics area, likely leading to the serious consideration of secrecy regimes where protection is no longer available.

Peter Treloar


Shelston IPLevel 21, 60 Margaret StreetSydney NSW 2000AustraliaTel: +61 2 9777 1111Fax: +61 2 9241 4666email@shelstonip.comwww.shelstonip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Daniel Raymond, who will serve as head of client relations, tells Managing IP that law firms must offer ‘brave’ opinions if they want to keep winning new business
The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Gift this article