Biotech Genome Patents Invalidated?

bruthasj writes "The Boston Globe has a piece about all the Biotechs grabbing patents that dealt with segments of the Human Genome. It appears there are work arounds and that the USPTO basically disregards further patents on the genome. As one quoted: ''The land grab is over''. Read about it here."

Comments

Land Grab is Over?

[Talez]

What about current patents?

Was this orchestrated by people who already have patents?

If they do keep the current patents, how can they justify not allowing patents to be set while keeping other patents? Isn't it just a case of double standards?

Re:Land Grab is Over?

[boaworm]

I think the whole process is moving away from patenting a gene to patenting a use of that gene. About a year ago I attended a presentation by the President of Decode Genetics (Decode.is) and the main issue there was that, at the time, it was all a race about "finding" a gene, patent it, and moving on. Noone cared by the time to find out what the genes really did, because then there were less genes left to research for later. They had to prove some sort of use for the gene before a patent could be issued, so what they did was that they mixed some substance including the gene into catfood (yes.. catfood). They put up a video camera and waited until Mr Cat preferred eating the modified food, and bang they had their "use", thus their patent.

This allowed very fast gene patenting and allowed stockpiling genes for later use/research.

This whole thing with overthrowing/invalidating patents is not a big surprise, instead of having a universal patent for the gene, many companies now have loads of new ingredients for catfood, while others can go on about their business. Bon apetit Mr Cat :-)

If you think this sound too unlikely/silly, have a look in the patent registry files :-)

Leaps and Grounds

[PaladinAlpha]

This brings up again the interesting debate on whether information can be copyrighted by the one whom merely discovered the information, regardless of the fact that the information existed to begin with. Personally, I feel that human DNA is rather obviously public domain...otherwise one is forced to consider the ludicrous situation of one being forbidden to sequence one's own DNA, lest a copyrighted segment result. This is akin to being forbidden to read a CD because the code contained therin is copyright.

Re:Leaps and Grounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Pi copyrighted or public domain? In either case the whole idea of copyrighting data collapses because every finite sequence of digits can be "sequenced" out of Pi (it is conjectured).

Re:Leaps and Grounds

[Gyan]

This brings up again the interesting debate on whether information can be copyrighted by the one whom merely discovered the information,

I agree that DNA shouldn't be copyrighted.

As far as your question goes, it depends on how you look at it.

IS information waiting for a chance happening when its enigma becomes just a past temporal phenomena ? or IS certain information locked unless an ingenious mechanism uncovers it ?

Should the information linked to the second set of circumstances be any more privileged than the first ?

Re:Leaps and Grounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this is what you mean by "the application in question is obvious", but...

I have understood that what's been patented is use of a gene, not the gene per se.

Let's say, however, that the patent office eliminates patents specifying vague uses when applicants don't really know what the genes do. So what? What's to keep the applicant who does know exactly what the gene does from applying for some [conceptually] trivial use of the gene, like using it as a "diagnostic method to detect breast cancer"?

I assume this is what you're refering to when you say the "application in question is obvious". However, I haven't read anything so far that would suggest such patents wouldn't be granted. In my mind, genotyping a locus for diagnostic purposes is just as public domain, so to speak, as the locus itself. The patent office saying "we won't accept vague patents" doesn't help the problem much in my mind.

Does anyone know what the status of these sorts of issues is?

Of course, it's fuzzy. Should diagnostic sequencing be patentable? Probably not. Gene therapy? Possibly, but probably not in my opinion. Drug design? Probably.

And does anyone know what the deal is with patenting mathematical algorithms and statistical techniques? I guess I've heard of it, but it sounds absurd to me. I saw a published paper the other day on a statistical technique that had been patented. I know it's off-topic, but it seems ridiculous to me that a statistical technique could be patentable. It seems even more ridiculous to me that it could be enforceable if someone is publishing it in an academic journal.

I guess I hate a lot of intellectual property conventions.

Fighting software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any chance I could translate some patented software to base 2 (A,C,G,T), claim that it's one of these "large sequence cases", and get it invalidated?

It'd be like patenting air...

[dWhisper]

The patent should never have been approved, since the actual DNA sequence is taken from a natural source, and beyond that, is the core for all genetic research. No cancer research center trying to eliminate the sequences for cancer risk should have to fill out patent permission paperwork.

It makes me wonder what other naturally occouring substances we could analyze and then later patent. The universities that have discovered the various sub-atomic particles don't hold any exclusive rights.

The whole idea behind it is money, or the rights to make anyone trying to do scientific research based on the genome give something up for the right to use the common human sequence.

Re:do they even check?

[umofomia]

does the patent office even check if the submissals actually exist/work whatever as claimed?

or do they just pay 10,000 monkeys to read through it then rubber stamp it?

More like the latter... according to this Scientific American article, designs for perpetual motion machines make it through all the time.

Well, duh...

[DarklordJonnyDigital]

How the hell do they expect to not claim they've never found previous effects of chunks of DNA before they patented it?

"Guys, guys! You'll never guess what I just invented! It's a chemical that allows this thing I call photosythesis! We could use it to allow plants to get their energy directly from sunlight instead of... oh. Nevermind."

Re:Talk about double jeapordy...

[valisk]

Sorry to disagree but this is not capitalism, this is Corporate Mercantilism.
Capitalism is free trade, in every way no barriers no 'protected' marketplaces, what we see today is the rhetoric of the free market combined with protectionist legislation.
These government built barriers such as Patents and Copyrights are a hang over from the days of Mercantilism and have been enhanced and extended at the request of the corporations until we have what have here today, a system of byzantine complexity which encourages and rewards those who obscure and lie and more importantly already have lots of money to buy the next set of laws.
By the way in most countries Corporations do charge you for having cancer, they are the ones providing your care and drugs, even in the UK under the National Health service, the 'Back' office is increasingly run by private corporations.