What are gene patents and why are people worried about them?

Community Genetics

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 203-208

  Merz, Jon F ^a   Cho, Mildred K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug licensing; Gene patent; Genetic invention

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN; CELECOXIB; PHOSPHODIESTERASE V INHIBITOR; RALOXIFENE; ROFECOXIB; SILDENAFIL; TADALAFIL; VALDECOXIB; VARDENAFIL;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICISM; GENE FUNCTION; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEREDITARY MOTOR SENSORY NEUROPATHY; HUMAN; IMPOTENCE; INFLAMMATION; LICENSING; MEDICAL ETHICS; NONHUMAN; PAIN; PATENT; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ANIMALS; GENE EXPRESSION; GENES; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; PATENTS;

EID: 27144444360     PISSN: 14222795     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000087956     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bar-Shalom A, Cook-Deegan R: Patents and innovation in cancer therapies: lessons from CellPro. Milbank Q 2002;80:637-676.
2. Amgen, Inc, versus Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc, 314 F 3d 1313 (CAFC 2003).
3. Merges RP, Nelson RR: On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Rev 1990;90:839-916.
4. Merz JF: Disease gene patents: overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 1999;45:324-330.
5. http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl.
6. US Code Title 35, § 203 (1999).
7. 66 Federal Register 1092-1099, January 5, 2001.
8. Berkowitz A, Kevles DJ: Patenting human genes; in Magnus D, Caplan A, McGee G (eds): Who Owns Life? Amherst, Prometheus, 2002, pp 75-98.
9. Katzman S: What is patent-worthy? Due to differing legal standards for patentability, applications for gene patents face different outcomes in various countries. EMBO Rep 2001;2:88-90.
10. Merz JF, Cho MK, Robertson MA, Leonard DGB: Disease gene patenting is a bad innovation. J Mol Diagn 1997;2:299-304.
11. Merz JF, Cho MK: Disease genes are not patentable: a rebuttal of McGee. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 1998;7:425-428.
12. US Patent Nos 5,981,178, 5,407,796 and 5,776,677.
13. US Patent Nos 5,306,616 and 6,001,576.
14. US Patent Nos 6,083,698, 5,912,127, 5,756,294, 5,753,441, 5,750,400, 5,709,999, 5,654,155, 6,083,698, 5,622,829, 6,033,857, 6,124,104 and 6,492,109.
15. US Patent No 5,508,167.
16. US Patent No 6,027,896.
17. US Patent No 5,935,781.
18. US Patent No 5,945,289.
19. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS: Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998;280:698-701.
20. Cho M: Ethical and legal issues in the 21st Century: Preparing for the Millennium: Laboratory Medicine in the 21st Century. Orlando, AACC Press, 1998, pp 47-53.
21. Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Weaver MA, Leonard DGB, Merz JF: Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J Mol Diagn 2003;5:3-8.
22. Merz JF, Kriss AG, Leonard DGB, Cho MK: Diagnostic testing fails the test: the pitfalls of patenting are illustrated by the case of haemochromatosis. Nature 2002;415:577-579.
23. Nicol D: Balancing innovation and access to healthcare through the patent system - An Australian perspective. Community Genet 2005;8:228-234.
24. US Patent Nos 5,851,762,5,612,179,5,192,659 and 5,096,557 are being enforced by Genetic Technologies, Ltd, which acquired the patents from GeneType, AG. http://www.gtg.com.au.
25. Dorozynski A: France challenges patent for genetic screening of breast cancer. BMJ 2001;323:589.
26. Gold R, Caulfield TA, Ray PN: Gene patents and the standard of care. CMAJ 2002;167:256-257.
27. Parthasarathy S: The patent is political: the consequences of patenting the BRCA genes in Britain. Community Genet 2005;8:235-246.
28. Merz JF: Discoveries: are there limits on what may be patented? In Magnus D, Caplan A, McGee G (eds): Who Owns Life? Amherst, Prometheus, 2002, pp 99-116.
29. Leonard DGB: Medical practice and gene patents: a personal perspective. Acad Med 2002;77:1388-1391.
30. http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/approveddrugs.asp.
31. http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp.
32. University of Rochester versus G D Searle, Inc, 249 F Supp 2d 216-236 (WDNY 2003).
33. US Patent No 6,410,516.
34. Aoki N: Patenting biological pathways; Ariad suit raises questions on laying claim to processes in treating disease. Boston Globe, July 24, 2002, p C4.
35. US Patent No 6,469,012.
36. Hensley S: Pfizer wins Viagra patent, moves to block competition. Wall Street J, October 23, 2002.
37. Caulfield T, Gold ER, Cho MK: Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate. Nat Rev Genet 2000;1:227-231.
38. Madey versus Duke University, 307 F 3d 1351 (Fed Cir 2002).
39. http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html.
40. Henry MR, Cho MK, Weaver MA, Merz JF: DNA patenting and licensing. Science 2002;297:1279.
41. Henry MR, Cho MK, Weaver MA, Merz JF: A pilot survey on the licensing of DNA inventions. J Law Med Ethics 2003;31:442-449.
42. Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Arora A: Science and the law; working through the patent problem. Science 2003;299:1021.