Advertisement

Patents and Proprietary Assays

  • Roger D. KleinEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Gene patents have been highly controversial in clinical diagnostics. Proponents claim that these patents promote gene discovery and encourage the production of novel diagnostic tests. Opponents argue that patents are unnecessary for discovery and that they raise costs, decrease patient access, and harm innovation in the field of molecular pathology. In two recent Supreme Court cases, Mayo v. Prometheus and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the Court ruled that biological correlations and human DNA sequences represent natural laws that cannot be patented. These cases appear to have eliminated patent-based monopolization of testing for mutations in human genes and genotype–phenotype relationships and will help facilitate the introduction of large-scale sequencing into clinical practice. The Supreme Court has thereby encouraged the advancement, development, and implementation of personalized medicine.

Keywords

Patent Molecular diagnostics Gene Legal 

References

  1. 1.
    Klein RD. Gene patents and genetic testing in the United States. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:989–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein RD. Legal developments and practical implications of gene patenting on targeted drug discovery and development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:633–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook-Deegan R, Conley JM, Evans JP, Vorhaus D. The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets? Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:585–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michael C. Patenting Life, N.Y. TIMES, 13 Feb 2007, at A23. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/opinion/13crichton.html.
  5. 5.
    35 U.S.C. § 154(a) (2012).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 (2012).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    35 U.S.C. § 112 (2012).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2012).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (2012).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (2012).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    35 USC §§ 200–212 (2012).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moses H, Dorsey ER, Matheson DHM, Their SO. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA. 2005;294:1333–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rai AK, Eisenberg RS. Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of medicine. Law Contemp Probs. 2003;66:289–314.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 25, codified as 28 USC 1295 (2012).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan RM, Kieff FS, Walsh JP. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:1091–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Lee SB, Wolfe LB. Biotechnology industry. In: Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety. 4th ed: International Labour Organization. http://iloencyclopaedia.org/
  22. 22.
    Brief for Respondent, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12–398, 569 US: (7 Mar 2013); U.S. patent and trademark office utility guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. 1092 (5 Jan 2001).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amgen v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (1990), cert. denied, 502 US 856 (1991).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuehmsted v. Farbenfabriken, 179 F. 701 (7th Cir. 1910), cert. denied, 220 US 622 (1911) (acetyl salicylic acid).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford & Co., 189 F. 95 (SDNY 1911), aff’d, 196 F. 496 (2d Cir. 1912) (epinephrine).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 253 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1958) (Vitamin B12).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394 (CCPA 1970) (PGE, PGF).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. Gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests. 2010. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/reports/SACGHS_patents_report_2010.pdf.
  30. 30.
    Bessen J, Meurer MJ. Patent failure: how judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers Put innovators at risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bilski v. Kappos, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir 2008) (en banc).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    In Re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398, 569 US (2013).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 09-4515 (SDNY filed 12 May 2009).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science and InnovationState University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations