|
Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
cDNA or "complementary" DNA is man-made,
starting from mRNA or "messenger" RNA
and
working backward to synthesize a DNA
strand that lacks naturally
(naturally
occurring sections that are not
expressed). This sort of
manufactured
gene is useful when you want a prokaryotic
organism like yeast to
express a
eukaryotic trait such as insulin.
It would not conflict with
genetic testing
as brought up in this case.
--- Rosser's trick: "For
every proof of me, there is a shorter proof of my negation". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
Creation of cDNA as a probe for a given gene should be rejected as obvious to
any skilled practitioner of the art. Once you realise you can create cDNA
probes
for one gene, applying it to any other gene is obvious and a standard technique.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
Let me get this straight. You can't patent DNA, but you can use DNA to create
RNA, and then use that RNA to create DNA from it, and patent that new DNA? Ok
make sense, in a politically motivated money hoarding kind of way.
From a
Science perspective you might as well have just patented the DNA sequence to
begin with. What the cDNA seems to provide is the duplication of the original
DNA sequence for doing a mass-production in a pharmaceutical context. That cDNA
process may eliminate some non-coding sequences that got edited out by the
natural process but the cDNA will be functionally the same in coding the same
functional proteins. As I see it, only new and original sequences should be
patentable, based on creating a customized protein sequence that does not
exist in nature.
In that sense, it's the protein that should be
patented, not the method used to encode that protein. In industry, when you
invent a new tool, do you patent the tool, or do you patent 'the mould that
makes the tool'? You patent the tool! Patenting the cDNA is an end-run-around to
patent 'the genetic sequence' (e.g. the mould) rather than the protein (the
tool). If the protein is itself found in nature then none of it
(cDNA/DNA/RNA/mRNA) should be patentable. Those are all just different
expressions of the same mould that makes the protein.
--- The
Investors IP Law: The future health of a Corporation is measured as the inverse
of the number of IP lawsuits they are currently litigating. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: frederik on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
- Gene [DNA with introns]
- transcription to mRNA
[natural process that copies genetic information and removes
introns]
- mRNA [naturally occurring in the cell]
- standard
laboratory procedure that copies the information from the mRNA into
DNA
- cDNA
It takes creativity and effort to find the right
gene and sequence it. The result is information, most of which is the identity
of the gene, its sequence, and the sequence and relevance of mutations. Gene
sequences are products of nature and not patentable according to the
decision.
It takes creativity and effort to make cDNA copies of mRNA, find
the right one, and sequence it. Still, mRNA is a naturally made and occurring
copy of information from DNA. cDNA is just a lab-made copy of the information of
that mRNA. What makes a particular cDNA unique is the sequence, ie the
information that comes from the mRNA template. I fail to see the
distinction.
If the invention is to construct a piece of DNA using the
information from eg BRCA1 and other information to make a new unique molecule
that does something novel, I can see that this can be protected. I fail to see
how a patent on such a molecule could possibly extend to the naturally occurring
sequences that are part of the molecule.
Copyright seems like a much
suitable realm for protecting the molecule. The molecule is made up of As, Cs,
Gs, Ts (like letters or words). The only thing that makes it unique is the
specific arrangement of As, Cs, Gs, Ts. The dispute would then be if someone
"plagiarized" the molecule. That would have to be determined with an
abstraction/filtration process disregarding all parts that are naturally
occurring sequences.
For BRCA1, the cDNA part is a copy of naturally
occurring mRNA and should not be protectable. A molecule (eg plasmid) that has
contains such cDNA as well as modifications to produce eg a useful protein could
be protected with copyright. Using the exact same molecule in its entirety would
violate copyright. However, anyone would be free to make another molecule for
producing the gene product in bacteria using the same BRCA1 sequence (naturally
occurring information), but not the other parts in a different construct.
In
the end, this is all about genetic information. Why would it patentable in mRNA
form (as copied to cDNA via a standard process) when it is not patentable in
DNA/Gene form?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Footnote 9. They don't say cDNA is patentable, only that they aren't deciding
whether it is or not. If someone claimed to patent it, I'd say the ruling itself
would apply: if the cDNA were present in nature or derivable from natural mDNA
by simple application of well-known techniques that any PHOSITA would
immediately think to apply in that way, then it'd fall under exactly the logic
of this ruling and be unpatentable. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
I recall that a farmer was sued for a DNA patent violation because modified
grain from the field next door infiltrated his property. How is this any
different from the case where the neighbor's fruit tree hangs across the
property line? These gene modified products will get released to the
environment and become part of the environment. Once that has happened, don't
they become part of nature? Is using that material acquired that way any
different than picking wild mushrooms? It seems that under the common law, a DNA
patent holder looses enforceability once he looses physical control of his
creation like that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
They can still patent cDNA.
So I can patent
anything that I can acronym to cDNA? This could be a fun game.
Or, of course,
lower courts could be faced with the fact that the process followed by one of
the parties before them does not match the process that the Supreme Court
described in its ruling.
At which point all sorts of legal fun ensues.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
Isn't the principle supporting the patent on isolation actually the claim that
isolation changes the function? If cDNA is the same information without
non-coding portions... it's the same DNA for the same function.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jjs on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
While the Supremes apparently declared cDNA is not
ineligible for patent under 101, from the footnote, they
make no decision as to whether other parts of patent law may
make it ineligible for patenting. Unfortunately, that
probably means (an)other court case(s) to cover 102, 103,
and
112 eligibility.
"We express no opinion whether cDNA satisfies the other
statutory requirements of patentability. See, e.g., 35 U. S.
C. ยงยง102, 103, and 112; Brief for United States as Amicus
Curiae 19, n. 5."
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
It's a pity people can't read the writing on that Wall.
I remember a saying, which I can't find on the net, but it goes like this...
"A scientist will draw a line through 3 points, an architect will draw a
line through 2 points, but only an economist would draw a line through 1
point!"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|