8. Patents for Methods of Medical Treatment of Humans
41. Six submissions commented on the patentability of methods of medical treatment for humans. Submissions from Fonterra, the NZIPA, Baldwin Shelston Waters, and Auckland Uniservices Ltd were in favour of allowing such methods to be patentable.
42. Pharmac was against allowing methods of medical treatment of either humans or animals to be patentable. They commented that the Act should contain an explicit exclusion to that effect and that the explicit exclusion should contain a definition of medical treatment sufficiently broad and clear to encompass both essential and non-essential methods of treatments.
43. The submission from the NZIPA (supported by Baldwin Shelston Waters), while in favour of allowing such methods to be patented, commented that if such methods were to be excluded from patentability, an explicit and clearly defined exclusion would be needed in the Act.
44. Federated Farmers of New Zealand was in favour of allowing methods of medical treatment of animals to be patentable, but did not comment in respect of methods of medical treatment of humans.
45. Fonterra and Auckland Uniservices Ltd, while in favour of allowing methods of medical treatment of humans, were also in favour of providing a restriction on enforcing such patents against medical practitioners.
46. Valerie Looper commented solely on the need to allow new uses of known pharmaceutical agents to be patentable to encourage researchers to investigate new uses of known pharmaceutical agents in the treatment of different diseases.
Back to Top