Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Patent’


Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

In their discussion, the researchers argue that the U.S. Supreme Court now has a chance to shape the balance between the medical good versus inventor protection, adding that, in their opinion, the court should limit the patenting of existing nucleotide sequences, due to their broad scope and non-specificity in the human genome.

“I am extremely pro-patent, but I simply believe that people should not be able to patent a product of nature,” Dr. Mason says. “Moreover, I believe that individuals have an innate right to their own genome, or to allow their doctor to look at that genome, just like the lungs or kidneys. Failure to resolve these ambiguities perpetuates a direct threat to genomic liberty, or the right to one’s own DNA.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130326101614.htm

Supreme Court May Decide Whether We Own Our Genes

March 26, 2013
 
Image Credit: Photos.com

Brett Smith for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online

They may be responsible for everything in your life, from conception to death, they may be inside every living cell in your body – but you do not own your own genes, legally speaking.

According to a report in Genome Medicine, patents essentially cover the entire human genome, hampering research and raising the question of “genomic liberty.”

The legal standing of genomic patents could change next month when the Supreme Court reviews patent rights for two key breast and ovarian cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which include segments of genetic code as small as 15 nucleotides, known as 15mers.

“This is, so to speak, patently ridiculous,” said report co-author Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College. “If patent claims that use these small DNA sequences are upheld, it could potentially create a situation where a piece of every gene in the human genome is patented by a phalanx of competing patents.”

In their report, Mason and Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, looked at patents for two different categories of DNA fragments:

  • long and
  • short.

They revealed 41 percent of the human genome is covered by “long” DNA patents that can include whole genes. Because many genes share similar sequences within their code that are patented, the combination of all these “short” DNA patents covers 100 percent of the genome.

“This demonstrates that short patent sequences are extremely non-specific and that a 15mer claim from one gene will always cross-match and patent a portion of another gene as well,” Mason said. “This means it is actually impossible to have a 15mer patent for just one gene.”

To reach their conclusions, the researchers first looked at small sequences within BRCA1 and noticed one of the company’s BRCA1 patents also covered almost 690 other human genes. Some of these genes are unrelated to breast cancer – instead being associated with brain development and heart functioning.

Next, researchers determined how many known genes are covered by 15mers in current patent claims. They found 58 patents covered at least ten percent of all bases of all human genes. The broadest patent claim matched 91.5 percent of human genes. When the team took patented 15mers and matched them to known genes, they found 100 percent of known genes are patented.

Finally, the team also looked at “long” DNA sequences from existing gene patents, ranging from a few dozen to thousands of base pairs. They found these long sequences added up to 41 percent of known human genes.

“There is a real controversy regarding gene ownership due to the overlap of many competing patent claims. It is unclear who really owns the rights to any gene,” Rosenfeld said. “While the Supreme Court is hearing one case concerning just the BRCA1 patent, there are also many other patents whose claims would cover those same genes.

“Do we need to go through every gene to look at who made the first claim to that gene, even if only one small part? If we resort to this rule, then the first patents to be granted for any DNA will have a vast claim over portions of the human genome,” he added.

Another legal question surrounds patented DNA sequences that cross species boundaries. The researchers found one company has the rights to 84 percent of all human genes for a patent they received for cow breeding.

Source: Brett Smith for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online

Topics: Health Medical PharmaGeneticsGene patentBiologyGeneLiving modified organismAssociation for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeBRCA1DNASupreme CourtHuman genome

SOURCE:

Human Genome: Name Your Price

Posted March 27, 2013 – 12:51 by a staff writer

Weill Cornell Medical College researchers have issued a warning that, according to the patent system, the vast majority of humans on the planet don’t ‘own’ their own genes, and in fact their biological make-up is being exploited for profit. Even seemingly innocent research into cow breeding can cover human genetic make-up.

As spotted by a Slashdot user, two researchers combing through patents on human DNA discovered that over 40,000 patents on DNA molecules have effectively declared the human genome for profit. A report in medical journal Genome Medicine said that humans may be losing their grip on “individual genomic liberty”.

Looking at two kinds of patented DNA sequences, or long and short fragments, 41 percent of the human genome is covered by DNA patents that can cover entire genes. According to the research, if all of the short sequence patents were allowed in aggregate they could cover 100 percent of the human genome.

Lead author Dr Christopher E Mason and co-author Dr Jeffrey Rosenfeld warned that short sequences from patents cover “virtually the entire genome, even outside of genes”. A Weill Cornell assistant professor asked: “How is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?”

There will be a Supreme Court hearing about genomic patent rights next month that will debate the morality of a molecular diagnostic company claiming patents on key cancer genes, as well as on any small sequence of code within the BRCA1 gene. Cornell explained that at present, genes are able to be patented by researchers working in companies and institutions who discover genes that have potentially useful applications, like in testing for cancer risks. Because the patents can be held by companies or organisations, it is possible for the patent owner to charge doctors thousands of dollars for each diagnostic test.

The authors pointed out that in their studies, while engaged in research, it is common to come across a gene that’s patented “almost every day”. Their paper promises to examine how genes may have been impacted by held patents, and the extent of intellectual property on the genome. Gene patents can also relate between different species – for example, a company may have a patent for breeding cows that also covers a large percentage of human genes. They cited one company that owns 84 percent of all human genes because of a patent for cow breeding.

“There is a real controversy regarding gene ownership due to the overlap of many competing patent claims. It is unclear who really owns the rights to any gene,” Dr Rosenfeld said. “Do we need to go through every gene to look at who made the first claim to that gene, even if only one small part? If we resort to this rule, then the first patents to be granted for any DNA will have a vast claim over portions of the human genome.”

Lead author Dr Mason insisted he is pro-patent, but believes people “should not be able to patent a product of nature”.

“I believe that individals have an innate right to their own genome,” he said.

http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-brief/70513-human-genome-name-your-price#BUKfEtjWKb3gq7X3.99 

Other related articles on Genomics and Ethics on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

20.2 Understanding the Role of Personalized Medicine

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FACP

20.3 Attitudes of Patients about Personalized Medicine

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FACP

20.4  Genome Sequencing of the Healthy

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FACP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

20.5   Genomics in Medicine – Tomorrow’s Promise

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FACP

20.6  The Promise of Personalized Medicine

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FACP

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

this post was reblogged on 9/28/2012 by

http://patentbusinesslawyer.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/ucsf-appeal-of-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-judgment-in-favor-of-insite-vision/

September 27, 2012 08:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Oral Arguments in the UCSF Appeal of United States Patent and Trademark Office Judgment in Favor of InSite Vision Are Scheduled for November 6, 2012

InSite Vision Along with Merck Will Vigorously Defend AzaSite® Patents

ALAMEDA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–InSite Vision Incorporated (OTCBB: INSV) today announced that oral arguments are scheduled for November 6, 2012, in Washington, D.C. in connection with the University of California, San Francisco’s (UCSF) appeal of the November 2011 favorable judgment of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO panel of judges ruled in favor of InSite Vision and confirmed the inventorship of InSite Vision’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,239,113 and 6,569,443 protecting AzaSite® (azithromycin ophthalmic solution) 1%. The appeal was filed by UCSF with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. on December 23, 2011, and a cross appeal was filed by InSite Vision on January 4, 2012. Merck, which markets AzaSite in the U.S. for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis, is collaborating with InSite on the continued vigorous defense of the AzaSite patents.

“We are highly confident that the UCSF claims are entirely without merit as confirmed by the USPTO judgment last November and we will continue to collaborate actively with Merck to vigorously defend our position”

“We are highly confident that the UCSF claims are entirely without merit as confirmed by the USPTO judgment last November and we will continue to collaborate actively with Merck to vigorously defend our position,” said Timothy Ruane, InSite Vision’s Chief Executive Officer. “We anticipate results of the appeal will be announced in 2013, but we could get a verdict before the end of 2012.”

In 2009, the Regents of the University of California claimed that the inventions contained in the patents were made by a former employee of the University alone and without collaboration with InSite Vision, the assignee of all the named inventors.

About InSite Vision

InSite Vision is advancing new ophthalmic products for unmet eye care needs based on its innovative DuraSite® and DuraSite 2® platform technologies. The DuraSite and DuraSite 2 drug delivery systems extend the duration of drug retention on the surface of the eye, thereby reducing frequency of treatment and improving the efficacy of topical drugs. DuraSite is currently leveraged in two commercial products for the treatment of bacterial eye infections, AzaSite® (azithromycin ophthalmic solution) 1%, marketed in the U.S. by Merck, and Besivance® (besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension) 0.6%, marketed by Bausch + Lomb. InSite Vision is also advancing three novel ophthalmic therapeutics through Phase 3 clinical studies: AzaSite Plus and DexaSite for the treatment of eye infections, and BromSite for pain and swelling associated with ocular surgery. DuraSite 2 incorporates InSite’s proprietary bioadhesive core technology with a cationic polymer to achieve sustained and enhanced ocular delivery of drugs. The DuraSite 2 platform will be applied to InSite’s future pipeline product candidates and available through a broad licensing program for advanced ophthalmic drug development. For further information on InSite Vision, please visit www.insitevision.com.

Forward-looking Statements

This news release contains certain statements of a forward looking nature relating to future events, including InSite Vision’s expectations of a successful outcome in the appeal, the expected timing of a decision by the court, and other plans and expectations with respect to the litigation described above. Such statements entail a number of risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: that the court may not rule in favor of InSite Vision, the inherent uncertainty of any litigation matter including the court’s decision and the timing of same; InSite Vision’s ability to continue to adequately protect its intellectual property and to be free to operate with regard to the intellectual property of others. Reference is made to the discussion of these and other risk factors detailed in InSite Vision’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its annual report on Form 10-K and its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, under the caption “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in such reports. Any forward-looking statements or projections are based on the limited information currently available to InSite Vision, which is subject to change. Although any such forward-looking statements or projections and the factors influencing them will likely change, InSite Vision undertakes no obligation to update the information. Such information speaks only as of the date of its release. Actual events or results could differ materially and one should not assume that the information provided in this release is still valid at any later date.

AzaSite® and DuraSite® are registered trademarks of InSite Vision Incorporated.

BESIVANCE® is a registered trademark of Bausch + Lomb Incorporated.

Contacts

InSite Vision
Louis Drapeau, 510-747-1220
Chief Financial Officer
mail@insite.com
or
Media and Investor inquiries
BCC Partners
Michelle Corral, 415-794-8662
Karen L. Bergman, 650-575-1509

Source:

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/biospace/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20120927005486&newsLang=en

Read Full Post »