|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
If that particular cDNA is new and not Obviouse.
I believe Myriad has already described the BRCA cDNA, so, that's no longer new.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
If your mRNA exists in Nature then
there is nothing man-made involved
( a key argument of
the ruling). Further, it is very trivial on paper to
convert mRNA to cDNA because it just mainly converting each
base to it's
complement. To get real cDNA is somewhat harder
but trivial for a person
skilled in the area or anyone who
can learn due to the kits available (and very
cheap).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
That's my worry, too.
The existing process for producing cDNA for a desired DNA strand (gene) using
information about its start and end is already patented. So a new process for
doing the same thing would be patentable.
However, it would appear that if the cDNA is already patented, using that new
process would not be allowed without a license for the cDNA.
What I'm not clear on is if this decision is the whole picture. If it only
determines cDNA is patent eligible subject matter, a cDNA patent application may
still be denied on lack of invention or obviousness. I think that's where this
would be a big win. If the knowledge of how to identify the start and end of a
gene is not patentable, then using an existing process for creating cDNA of that
gene should be obvious and not inventive. The work is in identifying the start
and end of the gene and that's no longer patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
My question is really this. Can someone do research on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes
without having to pay royalties to Myriad?
The implication is that it is not possible - and this is what really concerns
me.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
I think the answer is in footnote 9: the court isn't saying either way.
However, if you're starting from naturally-occurring mRNA and deriving your cDNA
by a well-known and straightforward process, then the results wouldn't be
patentable for the same reasons stated in this decision. And if it isn't
patentable, then Myriad couldn't claim a patent on it either and you'd be in the
clear.
Now, a specific test using that cDNA, that might be patentable as
far as it goes beyond the mere existence of the cDNA. And cDNA that was
completely synthesized from scratch, not derived from straightforward
transcription of mRNA, could be patentable to the degree that it's not something
that occurs naturally. And by "synthesized from scratch" I mean you designed the
sequence based on the result you desired without copying any naturally occurring
sequences and then synthesized that custom-designed sequence. Which IMO would be
a pretty mean feat of biochemical engineering given how little we know about how
and why a particular sequence translates to a particular biological/biochemical
result. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
Think of a set of instructions with the fluff removed (i.e. the unrelated
parentheses, etc).
That's what cDNA is. It is simply copied from the mRNA, which is transcribed
from the DNA. The introns are removed. Nothing innovative about the product or
the process. It's done with natural enzymes for crying out loud.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
