The patentability of life forms, and specifically plants and animals, have remained contentious issues in several jurisdictions. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the patentability of the Harvard Oncomouse in Canada, ruling that Canada’s Patent Act did not allow patents for higher life forms and it was up to the legislature to provide a proper legislative basis for such patents. Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement provides members with an option to exclude plants and animals from patentability. At the same time however, members are expected to provide for the protection of plant varieties either through patents or through an effective sui generis system or through any combination thereof. For example, the UPOV convention (The Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) provides plant breeders with limited monopoly rights to commercialize new plant varieties.

The Patents Act of Singapore contains no restrictions to the patentability of plants and animals or other biotechnological inventions such as DNA, living tissues etc. This proviso, however, has not been tested in a court of law nor has it been clarified at the level of examination. Until then, patentees have to rely on UK patent practice as a guideline. The Singapore Patent Office has been granting patents for inventions involving genotypically or phenotypically modified living organisms such as genetically modified bacteria, plants and non-human organisms.

Patenting plants and/or animals usually raise ethical and distributive justice concerns. Most international treaties and national patent laws have incorporated provisions to address such concerns. For instance, section 16(2) of the Singapore Patents Act states that "An invention of a method of treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy or of diagnosis practised on the human or animal body shall not be taken to be capable of industrial application". Thus the Registrar may refuse a patent for an invention, the use of which would be contrary to public morality. Thus, while patentees may file patents claiming plants and/ or animals in Singapore, grant of such patents is at the discretion of the Registrar who will weigh the relevant ethical and other considerations.

Patenting plants does not raise as many ethical concerns as patenting animals does. The issues here mainly concern traditional knowledge, and excessive protection and privatization of the genetic commons (e.g. natural resources, the gene pool etc.). The Singapore Patents Act does not contain an express provision to preserve and maintain the traditional knowledge of local and indigenous communities or to provide developing countries with access to technologies in a just and equitable manner.

A recent understanding reached between the United States and Singapore on Free Trade saw commitments from both sides to strengthen their respective Intellectual Property regimes for bio-inventions. Specifically, Singapore is expected to accede to the UPOV convention (for the protection of new plant varieties) to provide a system of better protection of plant varieties. Singapore also reiterated its commitment to its current regime of allowing patents on all bio-inventions so long as they do not contradict ordre public or morality. Thus, patentees seeking protection for inventions directed to plants and /or animals in Singapore have a conducive intellectual property regime to support them.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.