Biomarker patents for diagnostics: problem or solution?

Journal name:
Nature Biotechnology
Volume:
30,
Pages:
498–500
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nbt.2257
Published online

Patents on genes and other types of biomarkers have caused much controversy, but their importance to diagnostic innovation is in danger of being overlooked.

References

  1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The ethics of patenting DNA (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002).
  2. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. Gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2010).
  3. National Research Council. Cancer Biomarkers: The Promises and Challenges of Improving Detection and Treatment (eds. Nass, S.J. & Moses, H.L.) (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
  4. Garrison, L.P. Jr. & Finley Austin, M.J. Health Aff. 25, 12811290 (2006).
  5. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. The Innovation Gap, 2426 (NESTA, London, 2006).
  6. Cho, M.K. et al. J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 38 (2003).
  7. Carbone, J. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 784791 (2010).
  8. Huys, I. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 903909 (2009).
  9. Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO et al., 669 F. Supp. 2d 365 - Dist. Court, SD New York (2009).
  10. Stigilitz, J.E. BMJ 333, 12791280 (2006).
  11. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, et al. 11725 http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032612zor.pdf
  12. Decision of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04, T 0080/05 (19 November 2008). http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t050080eu1.pdf
  13. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 US ___ (2012).
  14. Human Genetics Commission. Intellectual property and DNA diagnostics (Department of Health, London, 2011).
  15. Gaisser, S. et al. Nature 458, 407408 (2009).
  16. Huys, I., Van Overwalle, G. & Matthijs, G. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 19, 11041107 (2011).
  17. The text of national legislation wherein these modifications can be found for France, Switzerland and Belgium can be found at the following sites, respectively: <http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=3011BE79C398F76D3F3C4286E5B42992.tpdjo10v_1?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006279493&dateTexte=20120402&categorieLien=id#LEGIARTI000006279493> <http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/laws/pdf/switz_patent_law_2008.pdf http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=180969>
  18. Matthijs, G. Br. Med. J. 329, 13581360 (2004).
  19. Malik, N.N. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 390391 (2011).
  20. Baker, M. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 931938 (2006).
  21. Digene Corp. Annual Report (2003).
  22. Hogarth, S., Hopkins, M. & Rodriguez, V. Sociol. Health Illn. 34, 234250 (2012).
  23. Hopkins. M.M. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 403410 (2006).
  24. Liddell, K., Hogarth, S., Melzer, D. & Zimmern, R. Intellect. Property Q. 3, 286327 (2008).
  25. Cornish, W.R., Llewelyn, M. & Adcock, M. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) and genetics (Public Health Genetics Unit, Cambridge, 2003).
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Guidelines for the licensing of genetic inventions (OECD, 2006).
  27. Association of University Technology Managers. In the public interest: nine points to consider in licensing university technology (AUTM, 2007).
  28. Thompson, M. et al. BMJ 342, d2973 (2011).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Michael M. Hopkins is at SPRU: Science and Technology Policy Research, at the University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

  2. Stuart Hogarth is in the Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine at King's College London, London, UK.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to:

Author details

Additional data