The legacy of Myriad for gene-based diagnostics: A new policy and regulatory option

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 267-277

  Odell West, Amanda ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953693797     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17471540     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiplp/jpp005     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. JF Merz, 'Disease gene patents: overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine' (1999) Clinical Chemistry 45, 324 at 329.
2. See, http://www.epo. org/topics/news/2008/20081119.html (accessed 11 December 2008).
3. WR Cornish, M Llewelyn, and M Adcock, Intellectual Property Rights and Genetics (Public Health Genetics Unit, Cambridge, 2003);
4. Intellectual Property Institute, Patents for Genetic Sequences: The Competitiveness of Current UK Law and Practice. A study on behalf of the DTI (London, 2004), www.dti.gov.uk/5397_DTi_Patent_Study.pdf (accessed 10 October 2007).
5. Laboratory Services for Genetics (2000), Report of an Expert Working Group to the NHS Executive and the Human Genetics Commission, http:// www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/Genetics/ GeneticsGeneralInformation/GeneticsGeneralArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ ID=4016215&chk=wWClVT (accessed 9 September 2007);
6. Clinical Molecular Genetics Society, Gene Patents and Clinical Molecular Genetic Testing in the UK: Threats, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Strengths, http:// www.cmgs.org/patents.htm (accessed 2 September 2007);
7. BSHG Statement on Patenting and Clinical Genetics (1998), http://www.bshg. org.uk/Official%20Docs/patent_cg.htm (accessed 11 November 2007).
8. British Medical Association, Gene Patenting: A Discussion Paper (2001), http://www.bma.org.uk (accessed 10 October 2007);
9. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethics of Patenting DNA; A Discussion Paper (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2002);
10. The Royal Society, Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science (Royal Society, London, 2003);
11. ABPI, ABPI Response to the Ethics of Patenting DNA-Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2003), http://www.abpi. org.uk (accessed 10 October 2007).
12. B Godard, H Kaarianen, U Kristoffersson, et al., 'Provision of genetic services in Europe: current practices and issues' (2003) Eur. J. Hum. Genetics 11, Suppl 2, S13-S48.
13. National Genetics Reference Laboratories, Consultation on the Impact of the White Paper; Our Inheritance, Our Future. A Joint response, October 2006: www.ngrl.org.uk (accessed 11 November 2007).
14. M Hopkins, S Mahdi, P Patel, and S Thomas, 'DNA Patenting: the end of an era?' (2007) Nature Biotechnology 25, 2.
15. Intellectual Property Institute, 'Patents for genetic sequences: the competitiveness of current UK law and practice. A study on behalf of the DTI' (London, 2004).
16. Lord Hoffmann in UK: Kirin Amgen Inc. v Hoescht Marion Roussel Ltd and Others [2005] 1 All ER 667, HL.
17. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices: Evidence and Policies (2002) at 72, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/21/2491084. pdf (accessed 11 November 2007).
18. A Odell-West, Should the medical exclusion within patent law be amended or removed? (PhD thesis, Sheffield University, 2005).
19. Department of Health and the ABPI, The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 2005 (2005).
20. Department of Health, Our Inheritance, Our Future. Genetics White Paper (2003).
21. UK: Allen & Hanburys Ltd v Generics (UK) Ltd and Gist-Brocades [1986] RPC 203.
22. FK Beier, 'Exclusive rights, statutory licenses and compulsory licenses in patent and utility model law' (1999) IIC 30 (3), 251.
23. UKIPO Manual of Patent Practice (2003).
24. Though the wild-type BRCA gene and various discovered mutations were under US patents: US 5,747,282; US 5,710,001; and US 5,654,155.
25. World Trade Organization, 'Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health', at para 4. Adopted 20 November 2001, Doha, WT/MIN (01)/Dec/2.
26. OJ EPO 7/1999, 437.
27. The Patent Office Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to Biotechnological Inventions in the Patent Office (2004).
28. C Matthew, 'Post-genomic technologies: hunting the genes for common disorders' (2000) BMJ 322, 1031.
29. Tri-lateral project B3b: Comparative study on biotechnology patent practices: Patentability of DNA Fragments. EPO, JPO, and USPTO 5, http://www.uspto.gov/web/tws/sr-3-b3b-ad.htm (accessed 9 September 2004).
30. EPO: T1191/01 Icos Corp v SKB [2002] OJEPO 5.
31. EPO: Howard Florey/Relaxin [1995] OJEPO 388.
32. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Another v H.N. [1996] RPC 76, 83.
33. M Hopkins, M Mahdi, P Patel, and S Thomas, Paper given at EPO seminar on Patenting biotechnological inventions in Europe, Brussels, 8 November 2007.
34. See RD Klein, 'Gene patents and genetic testing in the United States' (2007) 25 Nature Biotechnology 9 989.
35. D Schertenleib, 'The patentability and protection of DNA-based inventions in the EPO and European Union' [2003] 3 EIPR 125;
36. C Lawson, 'Patenting genes and gene sequences and competition: patenting at the expense of competition' (2003) Fed. L. Rev. 4;
37. SM Thomas, M Hopkins, and M Brady, 'Shares in the human genome-the future of patenting DNA' (2002) Nature Biotechnology 20 (12), 1185.
38. Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), (2002) 4 SCR 45.
39. D Nicol and J Nielson, 'Patents and medical law biotechnology' (2003). Centre for Law and Genetics, Occasional Paper No. 6, University of Tasmania, Australia, www.ipria.org/publications/pubfliers/BiotechReportFinal.pdf (accessed August 2004).
40. MK Cho, S Illangasekare, MA Weaver, D Leonard, and J Merz, 'Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services'(2003) JMD (5), 1.
41. Laboratory Services for Genetics, n 4 above.
42. European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on Development and Implications of Patent Law in the Field of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. (Brussels, COM 545 Final 2002).
43. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council (COM (2005) 312 Final).
44. EPO: EISAI/Second Medical Use [1985] OJ EPO 64, point 22.
45. T1191/01 Icos Corp v SKB [2002] OJ EPO 5 (where speculative functional claims were considered to lack industrial application).
46. N Stafford, 'German biopatent law is passed' (19 December 2004), http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20041209/01 (accessed 12 December 2005).
47. SJR Bostyn, Patenting DNA Sequences and Scope of Protection in the EU (2003) Community Research Report (EU Commission (EUR 21122), Brussels).
48. Doha WTO Ministerial 2001, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, n 37 above.
49. See 'General Principles' to the TRIPs Agreement.
50. EPO: Howard Florey/ Relaxin [1995] OJ EPO 388.
51. The USPTO has also developed strict requirements for proving efficacy of any method of treatment claim, see WD Noonan, 'Patenting medical and surgical procedures' (1995) 77 J. Pat. Trademark Off. Soc'y. 651.
52. A price fixing scheme for diagnostics as an alternative to compulsory licensing was touched upon in SJR Bostyn, 'A test too far? A critical analysis of the (non) patentability of diagnostic methods and consequences for BRCA1 gene type patents in Europe' (2003) Bio-Science L. Rev. (4) 111.
53. The British Patent System. Report of the Committee to Examine the Patent System and Patent Law, Report Cm 4407 (1970).
54. See the 2009 PPRS at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Pharmaceuticalpriceregulationscheme/ 2009PPRS/index.htm (accessed 20 January 2009).
55. PPRS, Report to Parliament, May 1996, www.dh.gov.uk/.../Pharmaceuticalpriceregulationscheme/PPRSreportstoparliament/index. htm (accessed 12 July 2004).
56. 'Please see: http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market-studies/completed/price-regulation (accessed 20 January 2009).
57. A press release was published on 19 November 2008 about the agreement for a 2009 PPRS. See http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail. asp?ReleaseID=384674&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFrom Department=False (accessed 20 January 2009).
58. A Odell-West, 'Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, the 'medical exclusion' and the Biotechnology Directive' Med. L. Int. 8, 239.
59. Laboratory Services for Genetics, n 4 above; The OECD report, n 13 above, at 72.
60. Department of Health, The NHS as an Innovative Organisation; A Framework and Guidance on the Management of Intellectual Property in the NHS (2002).
61. Laboratory Services for Genetics, n 4 above, para 3.2.