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.

Not quite a myriad of gene patents

A new study assesses the impact of recent US Supreme Court rulings on the changing landscape of US patents claiming nucleic acids.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: The shifting structure of US patents referring to and claiming nucleotide sequences.
Figure 2: The primary sources of nucleotide sequences in the 15,359 gene patents (that is, patents with at least one composition-of-matter claim to a simple DNA or RNA molecule) granted in the United States.
Figure 3
Figure 4: Shares of assignee types of the 15,359 gene patents granted in the United States.

References

  1. Fowler, C. Unnatural Selection (Gordon and Breach, Switzerland, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  2. For clarity of exposition, we seek throughout to maintain a semantic distinction between the term “nucleic acid molecule” as a physical object and the term “nucleotide sequence” as abstract information or code describing the structure of such a molecule.

  3. Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gold, E.R. Nature 18, 1217–1218 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Patenting DNA: a Discussion Paper (2002) <http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/patenting-dna>.

  6. Resnik, D. Owning the Genome: a Moral Analysis of DNA Patenting (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  7. National Research Council. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006).

  8. Holman, C.M. Univ. Missouri Kansas City Law Rev. 76, 295–361 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, No. 2010–1406 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2012).

  10. Cook-Deegan, R. Science 338, 745–747 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 702 F. Supp. 2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

  12. 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

  13. 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  14. 132 S. Ct. 1794 (2012).

  15. Rogers, E.J. J. Pat. Trademark Off. Soc. 93, 19–56 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Caulfield, T., Gold, E.R. & Cho, M. Nat. Rev. Genet. 1, 227–231 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schauinger, S. The Human Gene Patent Report. <http://hgpr.org/finalHGPR.pdf> (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moreover, some claims specify sequences within a certain percentage of homology or similarity to a reference sequence, which for more highly conserved genetic sequences, can, in theory, encompass multiple species' versions of that gene.

  20. Moreover, if interpreted more broadly, the “product of nature” exception being argued could logically be extended to composition-of-matter claims to other biological molecules with naturally occurring sequences or structures, including proteins and antibodies, but logically even fatty acids, vitamins, etc.

  21. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). GenBank Nucleotide database. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/>

  22. Benson, D.A. et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D34–D38 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Anonymous. Derwent World Patents Index (DWPI) CPI Manual Codes, Edn. 17, (Thomson Reuters, 2010). <http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/cpi_manualcodes.pdf>

  24. US patents in this analysis include all US patents referenced in NCBI's GenBank nucleotide sequence database, all US patents that responded to a full text query using all possible permutations of six-nucleotide (hexi-mer) sequences for both DNA and RNA as search terms, and all US patents identified by a select list of Derwent World Patent Index Manual Codes that refer to nucleotide sequences.

  25. CAMBIA. PatentLens Sequence Search Facility. <http://www.patentlens.net/sequence/blast/blast.html>

  26. Bacon, N. et al. (CAMBIA PatentLens, 2006). <http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/2205.html>

  27. Given the wide variety of ways in which a nucleotide sequence can be identified, such assessment is not straightforward. Bacon et al. analyzed 31,572 US patents granted between 2002 and 2010, almost all of which were referenced by nucleotide accessions to the GenBank nucleotide database. In 12,240 (39%) of these patents at least one nucleotide sequence is found in at least one of the claims of the patent. In the remaining 19,332 (61%), nucleotide sequences were not found in any of the claims. Our range of estimates is based upon the assumption that any additional patents found by our search algorithms have the same or lower probability of containing nucleotide sequence references in the claims as those included in the CAMBIA PatentLens data.

  28. The precision and recall rates of the machine learning algorithms used (that is, the true positives relative to classification by the algorithm and to classification by experts, respectively, for subsets of the training sample) was greater than 93%.

  29. Expiration was either (a) projected from patent application and grant dates or (b) determined from the International Patent Documentation Center (INPADOC) Legal Status data of the European Patent Office (EPO) (<http://www.epo.org/searching/subscription/raw/product-14-11.html>), such as for failure to pay maintenance fees.

  30. Interestingly, all three of the patents being challenged in the Myriad case (US patents 5,747,282, 5,837,492, and 5,693,473) involve both public and private sector assignees. See Supplementary Notes 1 and 2, appendix S1, for copies of the front pages of these three patents.

  31. Graff, G.D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 989–995 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pressman, L. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 31–39 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Venter, J.C. et al. Science 291, 1304–1351 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldfarb, B., Kirsch, D. & Miller, D. J. Financial Econ. 86, 100–144 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Interim Utility Examination Guidelines, 64 Fed. Reg. 71440 (December 21, 1999).

  36. Utility Examination Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. 1092 (January 5, 2001).

  37. Kling, J. EMBO Rep. 6, 1012–1014 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. USPTO, 1316 O.G.13 (March 27, 2007).

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank E. Hicks, K. Lee and C. Pratt for capable research assistance, and K. Silverstein for helpful advice. This research was supported by the US National Institutes of Health grant number 5 R01 HG004041-03.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory D Graff.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graff, G., Phillips, D., Lei, Z. et al. Not quite a myriad of gene patents. Nat Biotechnol 31, 404–410 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2568

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2568

This article is cited by

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