Today's Date: October 31, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Gene Patents

A Bright Future: The Current State of Solar Technology Development

Posted: Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 @ 8:00 am | Written by Steve Brachmann | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , ,
Posted in: Companies We Follow, Energy, Gene Patents, Green Technology, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Ohio State University, Patents, Samsung, Steve Brachmann, Technology & Innovation, Universities

Alternative forms of energy for the generation of electricity is a topic we focus on from time to time here at IPWatchdog. Recently, a team of scientists working at Ohio State University created the world’s solar battery, which includes a solar cell and a battery within a singly hybrid device. These batteries, which could achieve a length of charge comparable to other rechargeable batteries, achieves a cost reduction in utilizing solar energy of about 25 percent. It also reduces the need for any process of transmitting electricity from a solar cell to a battery, in which up to 20 percent of electrons are successfully transmitted to the battery.

The development of a solar battery, a major advancement in the field of solar energy utilization, is only one of the indicators of increased solar development in the past few months. Some municipalities in the United States are electing to develop community solar farms which can produce amounts of electricity that reach into the hundreds of thousands of kilowatts annually. Major solar panel manufacturers, such as SolarCity, are developing loan programs to help solar customers gain ownership of the solar panels outright over the course of years. Door to door sales of solar are also incredibly high, and Vivint Inc., a Utah-based solar developer, has sold units to 22,000 customers, mainly on the strength of house calls.



High Noon for Bayh-Dole

Posted: Wednesday, Jul 17, 2013 @ 7:45 am | Written by Joseph Allen | 3 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Biotechnology, Gene Patents, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Joe Allen, Patents, Technology Transfer

We have met the enemy— and he is us

~ Walt Kelly, creator of the comic strip Pogo

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked NIH in a July 12 letter to force compulsory licensing of Myriad’s BRCA breast and ovarian cancer genetic test under the “march-in rights” provision of the Bayh-Dole Act. “Testimony presented to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office made clear that many women are not able to afford the testing provided by Myriad.”  Senator Leahy also charged that the Myriad test “was developed with federally-funded research.”  See Leahy Urges Action.

Myriad received an exclusive license to develop the test from universities operating under Bayh-Dole Act. The law allows nonprofit institutions receiving federal R&D funds to own and license resulting inventions so they can be commercialized for use by the public.

Critics of Bayh-Dole have long sought to reinterpret its statutory standards under which the government can compel universities to issue compulsory licenses as a weapon to control prices. This was not the intent of the law.



Why SCOTUS Myriad Ruling Overrules Chakrabarty

Posted: Sunday, Jul 14, 2013 @ 8:30 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 30 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Biotechnology, Gene Patents, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, Pharmaceutical, US Supreme Court

Dr. Chakrabarty

There are a great many people inside the patent industry that are working hard to convince themselves that the Supreme Court decision in Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics is not so bad. The argument goes that the Supreme Court explicitly stated that cDNA is patent eligible and that Chakrabarty remains good law. The trouble with both rationales is that they are incorrect.

It seems to me that anyone who tries to convince themselves that Myriad is anything other than a disaster is just fooling themselves. It does no good to put our heads in the sand and ignore what the Supreme Court said as if by doing so it will make a difference. Anyone who is honest with themselves knows how the district courts will interpret Myriad, and it will not be in a patentee friendly manner.

But before going to far, let me conclusively demonstrate with the Supreme Court’s own explicit language why those who are trying to convince themselves, and others, that the decision is workable are wrong.



Myriad: Positive Implications for Genetic Research, but Some Questions Remain Unanswered

Posted: Thursday, Jun 20, 2013 @ 1:29 pm | Written by Jim Lennon & Greg Brodzik | 1 Comment »
| Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Patents, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Litigation, Patents, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court, USPTO

Widely divergent views have formed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Association of Molecular Pathology v.  Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398, slip. op. (U.S. Jun. 13, 2013).  Some commentators have reacted with dire predictions for the biotech industry, suggesting that the Court’s holding has unduly narrowed patent protection traditionally granted to DNA technology and has disincentivized researchers in the field, particularly those from small start-ups. Other commentators suggest that the Supreme Court’s decision in Myriad will actually benefit genetic research, particularly researchers at the start-up level.   The authors of this post tend to agree with this latter view.

The Court’s holding with respect to what constitutes unpatentable DNA subject matter was quite limited. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, explained that “[w]e merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under § 101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material.” Id. at 18. In other words, a naturally occurring DNA segment does not qualify as patentable subject matter merely by virtue of its “isolation from the remainder of the human genome.” Id. at 1.  Despite this limitation, the Court identified and implicated several related areas of technology that would not, as a matter of law, qualify as unpatentable subject matter. Indeed, if read carefully, the opinion actually provides instructions on how to successfully procure patent rights for technologies related to genes that have been identified and isolated.



AMP v. Myriad: Getting Beyond the Hype and Hyperbole*

Posted: Sunday, Jun 16, 2013 @ 9:35 am | Written by Eric Guttag | 11 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Eric Guttag, Gene Patents, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patentability, Patents, USPTO

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Myriad.



DNA patenting: There’s still hope (maybe)

Posted: Friday, Jun 14, 2013 @ 12:52 pm | Written by Ryan Chirnomas | 11 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Biotechnology, Gene Patents, Guest Contributors, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, Ryan Chiromas, US Supreme Court, Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that isolated DNA is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. See  Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. Or, put more precisely, the Court ruled that Myriad’s isolated DNA claims as written are not patent eligible.  The Court further ruled that similar cDNA claims are for the most part patent eligible, seemingly because the information underlying the claimed molecule omits some content of the information which underlies the full gene.

Spoiler alert: If you are the type of person who enjoys reading about convoluted analogies to baseball bats, plucked leaves, mined gold and surgically removed livers, you are out of luck.  Mercifully, and quite amazingly, the Court managed to avoid that morass.

A pivotal point is the question of whether Myriad was claiming information or a chemical compound.  Of course, the unique thing about DNA is that it is both (i) a chemical compound comprised of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and hydrogen, and can be bound to cellular proteins, and (ii) an informational blueprint for proteins which form the building blocks of every living thing.



USPTO Instructs Examiners to Reject

Posted: Thursday, Jun 13, 2013 @ 6:46 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 11 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Biotechnology, Gene Patents, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, US Supreme Court, USPTO

Earlier today the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that fundamentally changed the law of patent eligibility that has existed in the United States for the past 30 years, calling into question at least many tens of thousands of issued patents and many tens of thousands of pending patent applications. See Supremes Rule Isolated DNA and some cDNA Patent Ineligible.

With lightening speed, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has sent a memorandum to patent examiners relating to the aforementioned Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. The 1-page memorandum from Drew Hirshfeld, who is Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, is direct. “Examiners should now reject…”



A Patient-Centric Look At Gene Patents

Posted: Thursday, May 9, 2013 @ 12:22 pm | Written by Benjamin Jackson | 16 comments
| Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Patents, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, USPTO

One of the central policy issues injected into the current case of AMP v. Myriad Genetics is whether the BRCA patents are good for innovation and ultimately for patients.  Specifically, ACLU and PubPat allege that the patents have hindered research, blocked innovation, and harmed patient access to BRCA testing.  No matter how many times these allegations are repeated, all available evidence shows concerns over research and innovation to be unfounded.  More importantly, two natural experiments give us an opportunity to evaluate actual patient access to testing, the ultimate measure of whether the patents are doing their job of incentivizing delivery of new technology to the public.  Both of these experiments show that exclusive licensing of strong “gene patents” not only does not harm patient access to quality testing, but is instead vital to it.

In the impassioned words of Linda Bruzzone, a Lynch syndrome mutation carrier and head of Lynch Syndrome International:  “Many of us with Lynch Syndrome wish there had been a patent in place for us. It would have protected us and perhaps protected the lives of our loved ones.”  L. Bruzzone, Oral Comments at USPTO Public Roundtable on Genetic Diagnostic Testing (January 10, 2013).



Supreme Court Hears Myriad Gene Patent Challenge

Posted: Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 @ 5:40 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 25 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Biotechnology, Gene Patents, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patentability, Patents, US Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Building.

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. While the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) is the named party in the case, it is really a case brought and forwarded by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Myriad Genetics is the patent holder on various innovations relating to isolated DNA comprising an altered BRCA1 DNA and various methods of screening for cancer built upon various observations of the altered BRCA1 DNA. Essentially, AMP and the ACLU, along with researchers, competitors of Myriad Genetics and consumers filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a number of gene patents owned by Myriad and argued that gene patents should not be granted because patenting a gene is the same as patenting something that exists in nature.

This argument succeeded at the district court, but has twice failed at the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit initially reversed the district court, but appeal was made to the Supreme Court by AMP/ACLU. See As Predicted, Federal Circuit Rules Isolated DNA Patentable. In the meantime the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mayo v. Prometheus and remanded this case to the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of the Court’s decision in Mayo v. Prometheus. The Federal Circuit again sided with Myriad Genetics. See AMP v. USPTO Remand Déjà Vu. Appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, which accepted certiorari. See Supreme Court Grants Cert in Amp v. Myriad. The only issue accepted by the Supreme Court was the broadest issue: are human genes patent eligible?



Forward Looking Personalized Medicine, Patent Law and Science

Posted: Monday, Apr 15, 2013 @ 11:25 am | Written by Lori Pressman | 1 Comment »
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Biotechnology, Gene Patents, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, US Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Myriad Genetics was founded in 1991, and licensed, exclusively in the field of diagnostics, and also invented a group of patents associated with the five to ten percent of breast cancers known to have a strong hereditary component. The biomarkers disclosed, discussed, and claimed in these patents are also associated with an increased lifetime risk of ovarian and other cancers. See this U.S. Government website Genetics of Breast and Ovarian Cancer, updated 3/04/2013, and accessed April 14, 2013, for timely information on the significance of these biomarkers.

Social policy concerns have influenced the AMP v Myriad debate.  This article is intended to address certain misstatements of fact and draw attention to other facts not generally considered.

Atmosphere.

Petitioners have cast the case as “patients versus patents”. Petitioners comprise primarily molecular pathologists and women who assert they had to provide, and receive, respectively, inferior medical care because of Respondent’s patents. In part, because the SACGHS found that so called “genetic” diagnostic tests which were covered by patents cost no more than such tests which were not covered by patents, alleged negative impacts on future medical research have been more forcefully added into the mix of policy concerns creating a biased context for the debate.