Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patents and Proprietary Assays

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Genomic Applications in Pathology

  • 1844 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Klein RD. Gene patents and genetic testing in the United States. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:989–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Klein RD. Legal developments and practical implications of gene patenting on targeted drug discovery and development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:633–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Michael C. Patenting Life, N.Y. TIMES, 13 Feb 2007, at A23. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/opinion/13crichton.html.

  5. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a) (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 35 USC §§ 200–212 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moses H, Dorsey ER, Matheson DHM, Their SO. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA. 2005;294:1333–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rai AK, Eisenberg RS. Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of medicine. Law Contemp Probs. 2003;66:289–314.

    Google Scholar 

  16. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/asgn/table_1_2005.htm.

  17. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 25, codified as 28 USC 1295 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan RM, Kieff FS, Walsh JP. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:1091–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. http://www.bio.org/ataglance/bio/.

  21. Lee SB, Wolfe LB. Biotechnology industry. In: Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety. 4th ed: International Labour Organization. http://iloencyclopaedia.org/

  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. Amgen v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (1990), cert. denied, 502 US 856 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kuehmsted v. Farbenfabriken, 179 F. 701 (7th Cir. 1910), cert. denied, 220 US 622 (1911) (acetyl salicylic acid).

    Google Scholar 

  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. Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 253 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1958) (Vitamin B12).

    Google Scholar 

  27. In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394 (CCPA 1970) (PGE, PGF).

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Bessen J, Meurer MJ. Patent failure: how judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers Put innovators at risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bilski v. Kappos, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir 2008) (en banc).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  33. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  34. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  36. In Re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398, 569 US (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 09-4515 (SDNY filed 12 May 2009).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science and Innovation, State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Roger D. Klein

Authors
  1. Roger D. Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger D. Klein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Professor and Chair of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    George Jabboure Netto

  2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Clinical Professor of Pathology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Evanston, IL, USA

    Karen L. Kaul

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Klein, R.D. (2019). Patents and Proprietary Assays. In: Netto, G., Kaul, K. (eds) Genomic Applications in Pathology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96830-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96830-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96829-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96830-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation