Gene patent practice across plant and human genomes

The uses of genetic sequences to inform, enable or create products or services for human biomedicine are substantially different from their uses in crop-based agriculture. Here, we explore what similarities and differences may emerge in patent use and strategies, and map patent-disclosed sequences onto three important plant genomes: maize (corn), rice and soybean. We focus on those referenced in the granted patent claims to compare their uses to the approach used in human gene patenting.

The ownership question of plant gene and genome intellectual properties

The restructuring of the crop agriculture industry over the past two decades has enabled patent holders to exclude, prevent and deter others from using certain research tools and delay or block further follow-on inventions

Automated categorisation of patent claims that reference human genome sequences

Debates on gene patents have necessitated the analysis of patents that disclose and reference human sequences. In this study, we built an automated classifier that assigns sequences to one of nine predefined categories according to their functional roles in patent claims by applying natural language processing and supervised learning techniques. To improve its correctness, we experimented with various feature mappings, resulting in the maximal accuracy of 79%.

After the gold rush: Patent law and biological inventions

In response to scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology, the development of new technologies, and the demands of a hungry capitalist marketplace, patent law has expanded to accommodate a range of biological inventions. There has been much academic and public debate as to whether gene patents have a positive impact upon research and development, health-care, and the protection of the environment. In a satire of prevailing patenting practices, the English poet and part-time casino waitress, Donna MacLean, sought a patent application - GB0000180.0 - in respect of herself. She explained that she had satisfied the usual patent criteria - in that she was novel, inventive, and useful: It has taken 30 years of hard labor for me to discover and invent myself, and now I wish to protect my invention from unauthorized exploitation, genetic or otherwise. I am new: I have led a private existence and I have not made the invention of myself public. I am not obvious (2000: 18). MacLean said she had many industrial applications. ’For example, my genes can be used in medical research to extremely profitable ends - I therefore wish to have sole control of my own genetic material' (2000: 18). She observed in an interview: ’There's a kind of unpleasant, grasping, greedy atmosphere at the moment around the mapping of the human genome ... I wanted to see if a human being could protect their own genes in law' (Meek, 2000). This special issue of Law in Context charts a new era in the long-standing debate over biological inventions. In the wake of the expansion of patentable subject matter, there has been great strain placed upon patent criteria - such as ’novelty', ’inventive step', and ’utility'. Furthermore, there has been a new focus upon legal doctrines which facilitate access to patented inventions - like the defence of experimental use, the ’Bolar' exception, patent pooling, and compulsory licensing. There has been a concerted effort to renew patent law with an infusion of ethical principles dealing with informed consent and benefit sharing. There has also been a backlash against the commercialisation of biological inventions, and a call by some activists for the abolition of patents on genetic inventions. This collection considers a wide range of biological inventions - ranging from micro-organisms, plants and flowers and transgenic animals to genes, express sequence tags, and research tools, as well as genetic diagnostic tests and pharmaceutical drugs. It is thus an important corrective to much policy work, which has been limited in its purview to merely gene patents and biomedical research. This collection compares and contrasts the various approaches of a number of jurisdictions to the legal problems in respect of biological inventions. In particular, it looks at the complexities of the 1998 European Union Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, as well as decisions of member states, such as the Netherlands, and peripheral states, like Iceland. The edition considers US jurisprudence on patent law and policy, as well as recent developments in Canada. It also focuses upon recent developments in Australia - especially in the wake of parallel policy inquiries into gene patents and access to genetic resources.

Patent law and biological inventions

In response to scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology, the development of new technologies, and the demands of a hungry capitalist marketplace, patent law has expanded to accommodate a range of biological inventions. There has been much academic and public debate as to whether gene patents have a positive impact upon research and development, health-care, and the protection of the environment. In a satire of prevailing patenting practices, the English poet and part-time casino waitress, Donna MacLean, sought a patent application - GB0000180.0 - in respect of herself. She explained that she had satisfied the usual patent criteria - in that she was novel, inventive, and useful: It has taken 30 years of hard labor for me to discover and invent myself, and now I wish to protect my invention from unauthorized exploitation, genetic or otherwise. I am new: I have led a private existence and I have not made the invention of myself public. I am not obvious (2000: 18). MacLean said she had many industrial applications. 'For example, my genes can be used in medical research to extremely profitable ends - I therefore wish to have sole control of my own genetic material' (2000: 18). She observed in an interview: 'There's a kind of unpleasant, grasping, greedy atmosphere at the moment around the mapping of the human genome ... I wanted to see if a human being could protect their own genes in law' (Meek, 2000). This special issue of Law in Context charts a new era in the long-standing debate over biological inventions. In the wake of the expansion of patentable subject matter, there has been great strain placed upon patent criteria - such as 'novelty', 'inventive step', and 'utility'. Furthermore, there has been a new focus upon legal doctrines which facilitate access to patented inventions - like the defence of experimental use, the 'Bolar' exception, patent pooling, and compulsory licensing. There has been a concerted effort to renew patent law with an infusion of ethical principles dealing with informed consent and benefit sharing. There has also been a backlash against the commercialisation of biological inventions, and a call by some activists for the abolition of patents on genetic inventions. This collection considers a wide range of biological inventions - ranging from micro-organisms, plants and flowers and transgenic animals to genes, express sequence tags, and research tools, as well as genetic diagnostic tests and pharmaceutical drugs. It is thus an important corrective to much policy work, which has been limited in its purview to merely gene patents and biomedical research. This collection compares and contrasts the various approaches of a number of jurisdictions to the legal problems in respect of biological inventions. In particular, it looks at the complexities of the 1998 European Union Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, as well as decisions of member states, such as the Netherlands, and peripheral states, like Iceland. The edition considers US jurisprudence on patent law and policy, as well as recent developments in Canada. It also focuses upon recent developments in Australia - especially in the wake of parallel policy inquiries into gene patents and access to genetic resources.

Inventing life: Patent law and synthetic biology

With promises of improved medical treatments, greener energy and even artificial life, the field of synthetic biology has captured the public imagination and attracted significant government and commercial investment. This excitement reached a crescendo on 21 May 2010, when scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute in the United States announced that they had made a “self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell”. This was the first living cell to have an entirely human-made genome, which means that all of the cell’s characteristics were controlled by a DNA sequence designed by scientists. This achievement in biological engineering was made possible by combining molecular biotechnology, gene synthesis technology and information technology.

The new conquistadors: Patent law and expressed sequence tags

It's akin to the old Spanish, English and Portuguese explorers. They would take their boats until they found some edge of land, then they would go up and plant the flag of their king or queen. They didn't know what they'd discovered; how big it is, where it goes to - but they would claim it anyway. David Korn of the Association of American Medical Colleges This article analyses recent litigation over patent law and expressed sequence tags (ESTs). In the case of In re Fisher, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit engaged in judicial consideration of the revised utility guidelines of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In this matter, the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto sought to patent ESTs in maize plants. A patent examiner and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences had doubted whether the patent application was useful. Monsanto appealed against the rulings of the USPTO. A number of amicus curiae intervened in the matter in support of the USPTO - including Genentech, Affymetrix, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Association of American Medical Colleges. The majority of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit supported the position of the USPTO, and rejected the patent application on the grounds of utility. The split decision highlighted institutional tensions over the appropriate thresholds for patent criteria - such as novelty, non-obviousness, and utility. The litigation raised larger questions about the definition of research tools, the incremental nature of scientific progress, and the role of patent law in innovation policy. The decision of In re Fisher will have significant ramifications for gene patents, in the wake of the human genome project. Arguably, the USPTO utility guidelines need to be reinforced by a tougher application of the standards of novelty and non-obviousness in respect of gene patents.

The problem child in Australian patent law : "fair" basing

The concept of "fair basing" is widely acknowledged as a difficult area of patent law. This article maps the development of fair basing law to demonstrate how some of the difficulties have arisen. Part I of the article traces the development of the branches of patent law that were swept under the nomenclature of "fair basing" by British legislation in 1949. It looks at the early courts' approach to patent construction, examines the early origin of fair basing and what it was intended to achiever. Part II of the article considers the modern interpretation of fair basing, which provides a striking contrast to its historical context. Without any consistent judicial approach to construction the doctrine has developed inappropriately, giving rise to both over-strict and over-generous approaches.

Play a role in the patent puzzle

Discusses the contentious issues surrounding computer software patents and patenting in connection with the Peer-to-Patent Australia project, a joint initiative of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and New York Law School (NYLS) that operates with the support and endorsement of IP Australia, the government body housing Australia's patent office. Explains that the project is based on the successful Peer-to-Patent pilots run recently in the USA and Japan that are designed to improve the quality of issued patents and the patent examination process by facilitating community participation in that process. Describes how members of the public are allowed to put forward prior art references that will be considered by IP Australia's patent examiners when determining whether participating applications are novel and inventive, and therefore deserving of a patent. Concludes that, while Peer-to-Patent Australia is not a complete solution to the problems besetting patent law, the model has considerable advantages over the traditional model of patent examination