Genomics, Genetics, and Global Infringement: Australia's Frontier Patent Case in Cattle Genomics

Genomics, Genetics, and Global Infringement: Australia's Frontier Patent Case in Cattle Genomics

The Australian beef and dairy industries generate billions of dollars in annual revenue, and increasingly, genomic selection technology is at the heart of that productivity. Selecting cattle with superior genetic traits — higher milk yield, better meat quality, greater disease resistance — has been transformed by the advent of high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips and the computational methods that extract trait predictions from them. Now that technology is at the centre of a landmark patent dispute that is testing the frontiers of Australian patent law.

Scidera, Inc. v Meat and Livestock Australia Limited [2025] FCA 308 is a 2025 Federal Court decision that, while interlocutory, raises questions that may reshape how Australian courts approach patent infringement where key steps of a claimed method occur overseas. For businesses in the agricultural technology, genomics, and life sciences sectors, this case demands attention.

The Patent: Genomic Selection for Bovine Traits

Scidera, Inc. holds Australian Patent AU2010202253, which covers methods and systems for inferring bovine traits using high-density SNP chips and genomic selection algorithms. In plain terms: the patent claims a way of taking a DNA sample from a cow, running it through a dense array of genetic markers, and using computational methods to predict the animal's performance for economically valuable traits — growth rate, fertility, milk composition, disease resistance, and more.

Genomic selection has been one of the most significant advances in animal breeding in decades. Before genomic methods, predicting an animal's breeding value required years of progeny testing — waiting for offspring to reach maturity and measuring their performance. Genomic selection allows breeders to make those predictions from a tissue or blood sample in a fraction of the time.

The Defendants and the Alleged Infringement

Scidera alleges that six respondents — Meat and Livestock Australia Limited (MLA), Agricultural Business Research Institute (ABRI), Zoetis Australia, DataGene Limited, Genotyping Australia, and Xytovet — have directly infringed or authorised infringement of the Scidera patent by providing genomic selection services for identifying bovine traits in Australian cattle.

This is not a simple two-party dispute. The respondents represent the key institutions and commercial providers in Australia's beef and dairy genomics ecosystem. MLA funds and coordinates research for the red meat industry. ABRI develops and operates animal recording and genetic evaluation systems. Zoetis is a global animal health company. DataGene provides genomic evaluation services for the dairy industry. The alleged infringement, if established, would have profound implications for the entire Australian cattle genomics sector.

The Strike-Out Application: Pleadings in Complex Patent Cases

The [2025] FCA 308 decision is not a final decision on the merits. The respondents sought to strike out Scidera's statement of claim on several grounds:

• Inconsistent claim constructions: The respondents argued that Scidera's pleading adopted inconsistent constructions of its own patent claims, creating internal contradictions that rendered the pleading deficient.

• Inadequate "acting in concert" pleadings: Where infringement is alleged against multiple parties acting together, the pleading must sufficiently articulate how each party participated. The respondents contended Scidera's pleading was too vague on this point.

• Territorial issues: Some of the genetic testing alleged to constitute infringement was performed in the United States. Australian patent rights are territorial — they apply only within Australia. The respondents argued that steps occurring overseas could not ground an infringement claim under Australian law.

• Insufficient particulars: The respondents argued that Scidera had not provided adequate detail about which acts by which respondents constituted which alleged infringements.

Justice Rofe dismissed the strike-out application. Her Honour applied the principle that courts should take a pragmatic and less strict approach to pleadings in complex patent cases. Where sophisticated parties represented by experienced lawyers are adequately apprised of the case they have to meet — even if the pleading could have been drafted more precisely — striking it out serves no useful purpose. Alternative pleadings on contested legal questions (such as the territorial issue) are a normal and legitimate feature of complex litigation.

The Territorial Question: A Novel Issue for Australian Law

The most legally significant aspect of this case — and the one with the greatest potential to reshape Australian patent law — is the territorial question. Can a method patent be infringed in Australia when a key step of the method is performed overseas?

The respondents argued that because some genetic testing was conducted in the United States, the method was not performed "in Australia" and therefore could not infringe an Australian patent. On its face, this is an appealing argument: Australian patents are territorial rights, and historically, courts have required the infringing acts to occur within Australian territory.

In a sequel decision — Scidera v Meat and Livestock Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 1236 — Justice Rofe refused to summarily dismiss this claim. Her Honour noted that the United Kingdom courts have developed an "in substance" approach to territorial patent infringement: if the essence of the patented method is performed in the forum jurisdiction, infringement may be established even if individual steps occur elsewhere. Whether Australian law should adopt a similar approach is a question of first impression for the Federal Court — one that will be determined at full trial.

This is a genuinely novel legal question with significant commercial implications. If Australian courts adopt the "in substance" approach, it will be harder for alleged infringers to avoid liability by routing specific technical steps through offshore facilities. If they do not, it may open pathways for designing around Australian method patents by performing key steps overseas.

Key Takeaways for Agricultural Technology and Life Sciences Businesses

• Genomic technology is patentable — and enforceable. Despite concerns about gene patenting following the High Court's decision in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics [2015] HCA 35 (which held isolated gene sequences are not patentable subject matter), methods of using genomic data — including computational genomic selection methods — remain patentable. Scidera's patent is an example of the type of claim that survives D'Arcy.

• Multi-party infringement is complex to plead. When multiple entities collaborate on activities that collectively constitute infringement, each party's role must be carefully articulated. Early legal advice on the structure of infringement allegations is essential before commencing proceedings.

• The territorial question is unresolved. Businesses offering genomic services in Australia that involve offshore testing steps should monitor the outcome of Scidera v MLA closely. The trial court's ruling on the "in substance" approach to territorial infringement will be a landmark.

• Industry-wide licensing may be a more efficient solution. Where a patent covers a methodology used across an entire industry sector — as appears to be the case here — proactive licensing discussions may be more commercially efficient than protracted litigation for all parties.

Conclusion

Scidera v MLA [2025] is Australian patent law at the frontier — genomics, big data, agricultural productivity, and the extraterritorial reach of patent rights all collide in a single proceeding. The outcome of the full trial will have implications not just for the cattle genomics sector but for any business that deploys patented methods across international supply chains.

If you are involved in agricultural technology, genomics, or life sciences, and you have questions about patent protection or potential infringement exposure, contact Stellar IP Law for expert guidance tailored to your sector.