Navigating the molecular diagnostic patent landscape

Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 461-472

  Nicol, Dianne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

BRCA1; Clearing house; Gene patents; Intron sequence analysis; Molecular diagnostics; Molecular diagnostics industry; Ordre public or mortality; Patent pooling

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; HOMOCYSTEINE; RECOMBINANT DNA; TAQ POLYMERASE;

AMINO ACID ANALYSIS; AUSTRALIA; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SUSCEPTIBILITY; CHROMOSOME 4; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DRUG INDUSTRY; EUROPE; GENE LOCATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENE TECHNOLOGY; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; HUMAN; HUNTINGTON CHOREA; INTRON; LAW SUIT; LEGAL COMPETENCE; LICENSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; OVARY CANCER; PATENT; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REVIEW; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED STATES; VITAMIN DEFICIENCY;

EID: 44649164439     PISSN: 13543776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/13543776.18.5.461     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. Editorial. Genetic benefits at risk. Nature 2008;451:745-6
2. Ito RK, Demers LM. Pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics: future role of molecular diagnostics in clinical diagnostic laboratory. Clin Chem 2004;50:1526-7
3. University of Utah Research Foundation/Brcast and Ovarian Cancer. Case no. T1213/05. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. 27 September 2007
4. Laboratory Corp. of America v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., 126 Sup. Ct. 2921; 2006
5. Jensen K Murray F. Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 2005;301:239-40
6. Holman CM. The impact of human gene patents on innovation and access: a survey of human gene patent litigation. Univ. Missouri Kansas City Law Rev (in press). Available fiom: http://ssm.com/abstracr=1090562 [last accessed 19 April 2008]
7. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Patenting DNA. A Discussion Paper. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London; 2002
8. Goldstein JA, Golod E. Human gene patents. Acad Med 2002;77:1315
9. Barton JH. Patents, genomics, research, and diagnostics. Acad Med 2002;77:1339-47
10. Eisenberg RS. Genes, patents and product development. Science 1992;257:903-8
11. Rai AK. Genome patents: a case study in Patenting research tools. Acad Med 2002;77:1368-72
12. Verbeure B, Marrhijs G, Van Overwalle G. Analysing DNA patents in relation with diagnostic genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genetics 2005:1-8
13. Paradise J, Andrews L, Holbrook T. Patents on human genes: an analysis of scope and claims. Science 2005;307:1566-7
14. National Research Council Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health. National Academies Press, Washington: DC; 2006
15. Hopkins MM, Mahdi S, Thomas SM, Patel P. The Patenting of Human DNA. Global Trends in Public and Private Sector Activity (the PATGEN Project). Science Technology Policy Research Unit, Brighton; 2006
16. Williams-Jones B. History of a gene patent: tracing the development and application of commercial BRCA testing. Health Law J 2002;10:121-44
17. Rimmer M. Myriad Genetics: patent law and genetic testing. Eur Int Prop Rev 2003;25:20-33
18. Skolnick MH, Goldgar GE, Miki Y, et al. 170-Linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. US5753441; 1998
19. Gusella JF, Wexler NS, Conneally PM, et al. A polymorphic DNA marker genetically linked to Huntingtor's disease. Nature 1983;306:234-8
20. Gusella JF. Test for Huntingto's disease. US4666828;1987
21. Macdonald ME, Ambrose CM, Duyao MP, Gusella JF. Huntingtin DNA. protein and uses thereof. US5686288; 1997
22. National Research Council. Intellectual property rights and research tools in molecular biology. Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies Press, Washington DC; 1996
23. Cohen SN, Boyer HW. Process for producing biologically functional molecular chimeras. US4237224; 1980
24. Cohen SN, Boyer HW. Biologically functional molecular chimeras. US4740470; 1988
25. Mullis KB. Process for amplifying nucleic acid sequences, US4683202; 1987
26. Mullis KB, Erlich HA, Arnheim N, et al. Process for amplifying, detecting, and/or 68 cloning nucleic acid sequences. US4800159; 1989
27. Mullis KB, Erlich HA, Gelfand DH, et al. Process for amplifying, detecting, and/or cloning nucleic acid sequences using a thermostable enzyme. US4965188; 1990
28. Simons MJ. Intron sequence analysis method for detection of adjacent and remote locus alleles as haplotypes. US5192659; 1993
29. Simons MJ. Genomic mapping method by direct haplotyping using intron sequence analysis. US5851762; 1998
30. Simons MJ. Intron sequence analysis method for detection of adjacent and remote locus alleles as haplotypes. US5612179; 1997
31. Nicol D. On the legality of gene patents. Melbourne Univ Law Rev 2005;29:809-42
32. Re Bell, 991 F2d 781 (Fed Cir, 1993)
33. Re Deuel, 51 F3d 1552 (Fed Cir, 1995)
34. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Utility examination guidelines. Fed Reg 2001;66:1092, 1095
35. Re Fisher, 421 F3d 1365 (Fed Cir, 2005)
36. Skolnick MH, Goldgar GE, Miki Y, et al. Method for diagnosing a predisposition for breast and ovarian cancer. EP699754; 1996
37. Shatruck-Eidens DM, Simard J. In vivo mutations and polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. EP705903; 1996
38. Skolnick MH, Goldgar GE. 17q-Linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. EP705902; 1996
39. European PNatent Office. 'Myriad/breast cancer' patent revoked after public hearing. Press release, 18 May 2004. Avaible from: http://www.epo.org/about-us/press/releases/archive/2004.html [Last accessed 3 March 2008]
40. European Patent Office. Patent on breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene amended after public hearing. Press release, 21 January 2005, Available from: http://www.epo.org/about-us/press/releases/ archive/2005.html [Last accessed 3 Match 2008]
41. European Patent Office. European patent on mutations in breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene amended after public hearing. Press release, 25 January 2005. Available from: http//www.=epo.org/about-us/ press/releases/archive/2005-html [Last accessed 3 March 2008]
42. Vermij P. BRCA1 patent revisited. Nat Biotechnol 2005;23:277
43. Convention on the Grant of European Patents. Opened for signature 5 October 1973. United Nations Treaty Series 1065:254 (Entered into force 7 October 1977)
44. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on die Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions. Official journal of the European Communities L213:13 (Entered into force 30 July 1998)
45. Howard Florey/Relaxin, Case number V0008/94. Opposition Division of the European Patent Office; 8 December 1994. [1995] EPOR 541
46. Allen RH, Stabler SP, Lindenbaum J. Assay far sulfhydryl amino adds and methods for detecting and distinguishing cobalamin and folic acid deficiency. US4940658; 1990
47. Klein RD, Mahoney MJ. Labcorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: the Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:141-9
48. Laboratory Corp. of America v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., 126 Sup. Ct. 543; 2005
49. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of America, No. 99-Z-870 (District of Colorado, 21 November 2001)
50. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 370 F3d 1354 (Fed Cir, 2004)
51. Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Weaver MA, et al. Effect of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J Mol Diagnostics 2003;5:3-8
52. Paradise J. European opposition to exclusive control over predictive breast cancer testing and the inherent implications for United States patent law and public policy: a case study of the Myriad Genetics BRCA patent controversy. Food Drug Law J 2004;59:133-54
53. Pressman L, Burgess R, Cook-Deegan RM, et al. The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical study. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:31-9
54. Mikhail P. Hopkins v CellPro: an illustration that parenting and exclusive Rcensing of fundamental science is not always in the public interest. Harvard J Law Technol 2000; 13:375-94
55. Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM. Effects of research tool patenting and licensing on biomedical innovation. In: Cohen WM, Merrill SA, editors, Patents in the knowledge-based economy. National Academies Press: Washington DC; 2003. p. 285-340
56. Nicol D. Balancing innovation and access to healthcare through the patent system: an Australian perspective. Comm Genet 2005;8:228-34
57. Genetic Technologies Ltd. Company announcements: licensing update. 15 January 2008. Available from: http://www.gtg.com.aulindex.asp?menuid=060.070.130&artid= 10722&funccion=NewsArticle [Last accessed 3 March 2008]
58. Genetic Technologies Ltd. Issued licences. Available from: http://www.gtg.com.au/index.asp?menuid=060.070.190.020 [Last accessed 3 March 2008]
59. Ozdemir V, Williams-Jones B, Glatt SJ, et al. Shifting emphasis from pharmacogenomics to theragnostics. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:942-6
60. Metz JF, Kriss DG, Leonard DG, Cho MK. Diagnostic testing fails the test. Nature 2002;415:577-9
61. Nicol D, Nielsen J. Patents and Medical biotechnology: an empirical analysis of issues facing the Australian industry. Centre for Law and Genetics, Hobart; 2003
62. Green A, Wee R, Henaghan B. Biotechnology patents and the New Zealand health and research sectors [abstract]. Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre Conference, One Origin, One Race, One Earth. Calgary, 15-17 November 2007. Available from: http://www.aclrc.com/OneOrigin/index.htm [Last accessed 31 March 2008]
63. Stern S, Murray FE. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. NBER Working Paper No. W11465 2005. Available fiom: htcp:// ssm.com/abstract=755701 [Last accessed 31 March 2008]
64. Walsh JP, Cho C, Cohen W. View from the bench: patents and material transfers. Science 2005;309:2002-3
65. Walpole IR, Dawkins HJS, Sinden PD, O'Leary PC. Human gene patents: the possible impacts on genetic services healthcare. Med J Aust 2003; 179:203-5
66. Barton JH. Emerging patent issues in genomic diagnostics. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:939-41
67. Eisenberg RS. Why the gene patenting controversy persists. Acad Med 2002;77:1381-7
68. National Research Council, Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy. A patent system for the 21st century. Merrill SA, Levin RC, Myers MB, editors. National Academies Press: Washington DC; 2004
69. Australian Law Reform Commission. Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Government, Canberra, 2004
70. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Council. Report on human genetic materials, intellectual property and the health sector. Government of Canada, Ottawa; 2006
71. Rimmer M. The freedom to tinker: patent law and experimental use. Expert Opin Ther Patents 2005;15:167-200
72. De Francesco L. Genetic profiteering. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:888-90
73. Romeo-Malanda S, Nicol D. Pharmacogenetic testing; legal considerations for consent, privacy, and disclosure. Personalized Med 2008;5:155-61
74. Batchelder K. Miller P. A change in the market: investing in diagnostics. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:922-6
75. Baker M. New-wave diagnostics. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:931-9
76. Eisenberg RS. Genomic patents and product development incentives. In: Knoppers BM, Laberge C, Hirde M, editors, Human DNA: law and policy. Kluwer Law International, The Hague; 1997:373-8
77. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licences, patent pools and standard-setting. In: Jaffe A, Lerner J, Stern S, editors, Innovation Policy and the Economy. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA: 2001;119-50
78. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998;280:698-702
79. Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan RM, Keiff FS, Walsh JP. Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:1091-4
80. Intellectual Property Institute. Patents for genetic sequences: the competitiveness of current UK law and practice. Department of Trade and Industry, London; 2004
81. Organization for Economic Co-Operanion and Development. Genetic inventions, intellectual property rights and licensing practices: evidence and policies. OECD, Berlin; 2002
82. Caulfield BA. Why we hate gene patents. IP Worldwide. 30 December 2002. Available from: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1039054490790 [Last accessed 28 February 2008]
83. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Guidelines for the Licensing of Genetic Inventions. OECD, Paris; 2006
84. National Institutes of Health. Principles and guidelines for recipients of NIH research grants and contracts on obtaining and disseminating biomedical research resources: final notice. Fed Reg 1999;64:72090
85. National Institutes of Health. Best practices for the licensing of genomic inventions: final notice. Fed Reg 2005;70:18413
86. Clark J, Piccolo J, Stanton B, Tyson K. Patent pools: a solution to the problem of access in biotechnology patents? United States Patent and Trademark Office: Washington DC; 2000
87. Ebersole TJ, Guthrie MN, Goldstein JA. Patent pools and standard setting in diagnostic genetics. Nat Biotechnol 2005;23:937-8
88. Resnik DB. A biotechnology patent pool: an idea whose time has come? J Phil Sci Law 2003;3. Available from: http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/ archives/papers/biotechPatent.html [Last accessed 31 March 2008]
89. Van Overwalle G, Van Zimmern E, Verbeure B, Matthijs G. Models for facilitating access to patents on genetic inventions. Nat Rev Genetics 2006;7:143-8
90. Verbeure B, Van Zimmeren E, Matthijs G, Van Overwalle G. Patent pools and diagnostic testing. Trends Biotechnol 2006;24:115-20
91. Krattiger A, Kowalski S, Eiss R, Taubman A. Intellectual property management strategies to accelerate the development and access of vaccines and diagnostics: case studies on pandemic influenza, malaria and SARS. Innov Strategy Today 2006;2:67-122
92. Gaulé P. Towards patent pools in biotechnology? Innov Strategy Today 2006;2:123-34
93. Graff G, Zilberman D. Towards an intellectual property clearinghouse for agricultural biotechnology. Intellectual Prop Strategy Today 2001;3:1-14
94. Van Zimmeren E, Verbeure B, Van Overwalle G, Mattijs G. A clearing house for diagnostic testing: the solution to ensure access to and use of patented genetic inventions? Bull World Health Org 2006;84:352-9
95. Hope J. Biobazaar: the open source revolution and biotechnology. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA; 2008
96. Nicol D, Hope J. Cooperative strategies for facilitating use of patented inventions in biotechnology. Law Context 2006;24:85-112
97. Aymé S, Matthijs G, Soni S; On Behalf of the Eshg Working Party on Human Genetics. Patenting and licensing in genetic testing: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genetics 2008;16:405-11