Can an animal be patented?

by American Anti-Vivisection Society

While common sense would rail against the idea that an animal could be considered an invention, a mere object like a toothbrush, toaster, or toilet seat, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been granting patents on animals for over 20 years.

The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), however, contests the legality of animal patents and recently filed a challenge to Patent No. 6,924,413, issued for rabbits and other animals whose eyes have been purposefully damaged so they can be used to develop treatments for dry eye.

Recognizing the merits of our challenge, the USPTO recently decided to open an investigation into the rabbit patent. The USPTO agreed that substantial new questions of patentability were raised. Following a challenge submitted by AAVS in 2004, the USPTO agreed to re-examine a patent issued for beagles who were sickened and then infected with mold. That challenge succeeded when Texas A&M University dropped its claims on the beagles, and AAVS hopes to find additional success with the rabbit patent.

In 2002, the Canadian Supreme Court rejected the argument that animals could be patented by finding that mice and other higher life forms were not analogous to patentable subject matter. Because Canadian and U.S. patent laws are similar, AAVS is using this Canadian precedent to argue that the USPTO should not allow the patenting of animals.

Allowing an individual to profit, by way of royalty fees, from damaging a rabbit's eyes or otherwise harming an animal represents an abuse of the patent system. What's more, the hope and promise of financial reward spur heavy investment into the development of animal models for drug and cosmetic testing. The increase in animal patenting seen in recent years, due largely to the proliferation of genetic engineering, represents a serious threat to efforts to reduce animal suffering.

The USPTO, however, is reluctant to look at whether animals really should be considered patentable "subject matter." While a long road lies ahead in challenging the USPTO's animal patent policy, AAVS is making strides in protecting animals from such abuses by challenging one patent at a time. Thanks to our many supporters, nearly 3,000 people have already written letters to the USPTO supporting our recent challenge! If you have not already done so, please urge the USPTO to stop patenting animals.

What You Can Do:

Please send a letter to the USPTO supporting AAVS's Request for Reexamination of Patent No. 6,924,413. Be sure to mention that you are opposed to the USPTO's practice of issuing patents on animals and that animals are sentient beings, not inventions.

S. Patent and Trademark Office,

Mail Comments—Patents

Commissioner for Patents

O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

click here for a sample letter.

Conducting experiments for higher life forms

Posted by Rajendra at March-11-2008 12:33

Hi,

The patent 6,924,413 provides a diagnostic method for animals suffering
corneal epithelial damages using a water-absorbing material. May be, the same procedure could be used for human beings, who are suffering from the same.

Many mysteries of human anatomy were revealed, after conducting experiments involving the aforementioned diagnostic method on animals. A suitable example is mentioned below.

For many millennia, the function of the brain was unknown. Ancient thinkers including Aristotle used to presume that mental activity of a human body was associated with the heart. However, after conducting some experiments on the animals such as monkey and chimpanzee, researchers revealed that chimpanzee’s mental activity is associated with its brain and further, the chimpanzee’s brain is similar to that of a human. Therefore, it was concluded that the mental activity of the human body is associated with brain instead of the heart.

Hence, I believe that, such methods of conducting experiments on animals can be patented, rather granting patents on animals.