decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Trying Out Google's New Patent Search Tool: The Prior Art Finder ~pj | 154 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Trying Out Google's New Patent Search Tool: The Prior Art Finder ~pj
Authored by: albert on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT
No, a 'new' gene shouldn't be patentable. It's just information, data. Maybe
you could copyright it {:-)>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Trying Out Google's New Patent Search Tool: The Prior Art Finder ~pj
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
Human genes are human made :-)

If we didn't make them, we wouldn't be here :-)

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Gene patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT
So, patents on human genes should be all disallowed, right? After all, they are products of nature... Now that we can construct our own genes, I'd grant that is another thing entirely, maybe.
It is essential that you distinguish between the actual gene and process it get the gene sequence (or just if it has a specific sequence). I do not know of any actual patents on the gene alone except for transgenic animal patents like the first OncoMouse in 1988. Further, as specific cutoff date, any human gene specific patents have to be filed before the start of the Human Genome project circa 1990 (as that was when the raw sequence was being released rather than the official announcement in 2001).

What Myriad and others have done is patent the process to check the spelling of a specific gene that is related to some condition. These so-called gene patents are more on the association between the sequence and some condition. Thus, if you have this specific pattern then you could run as fast as Usain Bolt. Note that apparently a variant of myostatin gives speed in whippets (dog breed) and thoroughbred racehorses (also lack of this the gene is responsible for double muscling in cattle).

After all, the actual association between a specific sequence and a condition is really a scientific fact (maybe proven to be wrong in the future) and, thus, can not be patented. Up until the Mayo v Prometheus ruling, the Courts have failed to separate specific sequence identification from generic procedures refined since the 1960's. So effectively you should be able to get a valid patent to test if the word realize appeared in a document or not. Then get another patent for the word realise, another patent to get the word release, and so on. (These words are chosen since most mutations change letters rather than delete or insert letters).

Hopefully this will change with Mayo v Prometheus ruling so that those gene patents are a just a simple collection of established techniques and facts that are not greater than sum of the whole.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )