Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Are the gene-patent storm clouds dissipating? A global snapshot

Nature Biotechnology volume 33, pages 347–352 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

In genetic diagnostics testing, what are the boundaries of the global patent problem, and is there a real risk that patents and licensing practices could impede access to tests?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Number of countries with at least one extended patent family application or designation, by disease.

References

  1. Cho, M.K. et al. J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 3–8 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carbone, J. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 784–791 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook-Deegan, R., Chandrasekharan, S. & Angrist, M. Nature 458, 405–406 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. US Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society. Gene patents and licensing practices and their impact on patient access to genetic tests (SACGHS, Bethesda, Maryland) http://oba.od.nih.gov/SACGHS/sacghs_documents.html#GHSDOC_011 (2010).

  5. Hawkins, N. Genet. Med. 13, 320–324 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caulfield, T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gaisser, S. et al. Nature 458, 407–408 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nicol, D. Community Genet. 8, 228–234 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nicol, D. & Liddicoat, J. Aust. Health Rev. 37, 281–285 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen, K. & Murray, F. Science 310, 239–240 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schauinger, S. The human gene patent report http://hgpr.org/finalHGPR.pdf (2012).

  12. Holman, C.M. 80 UMKC L. Rev. 563 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2001574

  13. Holman, C.M. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 1054–1058 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pressman, L. Life Sciences Law & Industry Report 6, 329 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenfeld, J.A. & Mason, C.E. Genome Med. 5, 27 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Zimmerman, E. et al. in Breast Cancer Gene Research and Medical Practices (eds. Gibbon, S. et al.) (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 133 S Ct 3027 (2013).

  18. Gold, E.R. & Cook-Deegan, R. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 192ed9 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Noonan, K.E. Game over for Myriad—update. Patent Docs http://www.patentdocs.org/2015/02/game-over-for-myriad-update.html (16 February 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  20. McKernan, K.J. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 884–887 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Graff, G.D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 404–410 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

  23. Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v. CLS Bank International 134 S Ct 1537 (2014).

  24. Haanes, E.J. & Cànaves, J.M. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 758–760 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc. [2014] FCFCA 115.

  26. Matthijs, G. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 704–710 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jefferson, O.A. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1086–1093 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hopkins, M.M. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 185–187 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kers, J.G. et al. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 22, 1155–1159 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Huys, I. et al. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 441–448 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Huys, I. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 903–909 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. http://omim.org/entry/164400.

  33. http://www.omim.org/entry/183086.

  34. http://www.epo.org/searching/essentials/patent-families/definitions.html.

  35. Moore, K.A. Berkley Tech. L.J. 20, 1521–1526 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lemley, M.A. & Shapiro, C. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 75–98 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cook-Deegan, R. et al. Genet. Med. 12, S15–S38 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Instrumentation Laboratory. Instrumentation Laboratory wins patent infringement and unfair competition trial against Diagnostica Stago relating to reagents for hemostasis diagnostics (4 May, 2009).

  39. European Techno-Economic Policy Support. The role of patents in the development and clinical use of genetic tests. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sc30-wp3.pdf&site=25 (2008).

  40. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Genet. Med. 13, 67–76 (2011).

  41. Kujovich, J.L. Genet. Med. 13, 1–16 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT

  43. European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases. 2012 report on the state of the art of rare disease activities in Europe. (EUCERD) http://ec.europa.eu/health/rare_diseases/publications/index_en.htm#anchor1_more (2012).

  44. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2013 World intellectual property indicators. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/941/wipo_pub_941_2013.pdf (2013).

  45. Baldwin, A.L. & Cook-Deegan, R. Genome Med. 5, 8 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Nicol, D. & Liddicoat, J. J. Law. Inform. Sci. 22, 32–54 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sherkow, J.S. & Scott, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 620–620 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Conley, J.M. & Cook-Deegan, R. N.C.J.L. Tech. 15, 597–637 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to G. Van Overwalle, T. Bubela and S. Chandraskharan for helpful feedback on drafts of this manuscript. This project was funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP0985077, 2009–2013 to D.N.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johnathon Liddicoat, Tess Whitton and Dianne Nicol are at the Centre for Law and Genetics, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.,

    Johnathon Liddicoat, Tess Whitton & Dianne Nicol

Authors
  1. Johnathon Liddicoat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tess Whitton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dianne Nicol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnathon Liddicoat.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 72 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liddicoat, J., Whitton, T. & Nicol, D. Are the gene-patent storm clouds dissipating? A global snapshot. Nat Biotechnol 33, 347–352 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3182

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3182

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing