Showing posts with label patent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patent. Show all posts
, ,

Genes as essential facilities?

Sunday, September 16, 2007

I've been quite busy recently doing my university papers. But when I browsed the net just now, I discovered an interesting article which argues that genes might be regarded as an 'essential facilities'. So, I thought you might be interested. Here's an abstract:

With the IMS Health case before the ECJ, the essential facilities doctrine has taken centre stage in Europe. A recent report by the JFTC seems to suggest that Japan is serious about invoking this doctrine. However the parameters of this doctrine are far from settled. Antitrust authorities do not enough guidance on issues such as determining appropriate license fees for access, optimal number of licensees etc. In keeping with my focus on blocking and disease gene patents, I have dealt mainly with one aspect of this doctrine-namely the question of “essentiality”. Essentiality would in most cases help in a determination of ‘blocking’ i.e. if the facility is a non-essential one, then there can possibly be no blocking. However the converse need not always be true-i.e. if the facility is an essential one, but is widely licensed, then it is quite possible that there would be no blocking.
Read more here.

 

, ,

Synthia's Patent Application at the USPTO

Saturday, June 9, 2007

For those of you who are curious, here's a link to Venter Institute's "synthetic life" patent application at the USPTO:
The present invention relates, e.g., to a minimal set of protein-coding genes which provides the information required for replication of a free-living organism in a rich bacterial culture medium, wherein (1) the gene set does not comprise the 101 genes listed in Table 2; and/or wherein (2) the gene set comprises the 381 protein-coding genes listed in Table 3 and, optionally, one of more of: a set of three genes encoding ABC transporters for phosphate import (genes MG410, MG411 and MG412; or genes MG289, MG290 and MG291); the lipoprotein-encoding gene MG185 or MG260; and/or the glycerophosphoryl diester phosphodiesterase gene MG293 or MG385.

 

,

Patenting new lifeforms: more than just Harvard Mouse Part II

Thursday, June 7, 2007

"For the first time, God has competition," adds Pat Mooney of ETC Group. "Venter and his colleagues have breached a societal boundary, and the public hasn't even had a chance to debate the far-reaching social, ethical and environmental implications of synthetic life," said Mooney
Harvard Mouse Part one was a collaboration between Harvard and Du Pont to create a gene that can make mouses susceptible to cancer. USTPO granted the patent application but both Canada and Europe rejected it as they deem it contrary to the the public ordre.

Now we have another patent application from the Venter Institute. A new bacteria not previously existed on the nature. So this is more than just the Harvard Mouse, I suppose there is a new set of 'novelty' being offered here.

The problem is, if we patent the lifeform, the descendant and its variant may be subjected to ownership of the patent owner, I mean, the genetic information. ANother problem entangled with this patent application, the ETC said, is its environmental concerns:
Action Needed: Before syns are allowed to go forward, society must debate whether they are socially acceptable or desirable: How could their accidental release into the environment be prevented or the effects of their intentional release be evaluated? Who will control them, and how? How will research be regulated? In 2006 a coalition of 38 civil society organizations called on synthetic biologists to withdraw proposals for self-governance of the technology.
ETC group is trying to block this patent application for public ordre reasons:

ETC is also writing to WIPO and the U.S. PTO, asking them to reject the patent on the grounds that it is contrary to ordre public (public morality and safety). Later this month ETC Group will attend Synthetic Biology 3.0 (an international conference of synthetic biologists) in Zuerich, Switzerland June 24-26 where it will call upon scientists to join in a global dialogue on synthetic biology. ETC will organize meetings with governments and civil society during the upcoming scientific subcommittee meetings of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Paris, July 2-6, in order to discuss the implications of the creation of synthetic life forms for the Biodiversity Convention and for its protocol on biosafety. ETC Group will convene a global meeting of civil society actors on this and related issues within the next year.



 

, , , ,

Can bird flu strains be "owned"?

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Indonesia delayed the transfer of bird flu strains to WHO after an aussie company developed a vaccine out of it:
The Indonesian Government says Australian company CSL should have sought its permission to develop a bird flu vaccine using the Indonesian strain of the H5N1 virus. But news this week that the Australian pharmaceuticals company CSL had developed a vaccine against the H5N1 bird flu virus was met with alarm by Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadillah Supari. She says Indonesia is seeking intellectual property rights over the Indonesian strain of the virus on which the vaccine is based.

If the case is about some Indonesian plants or animals, I am certain that there could be some protection granted by one of intellectual property treaties currently in force -- if Indonesia is a party to the treaty. However, I don't think it is the case when virus is involved. I don't think bird flu strains per se can be subjected to IPR protection. If, on the other hand, someone decode the strains, they might be able to obtain IPR protection. The code could be protected but the sample cannot!

NY Times said:
A spokeswoman for Indonesia’s Health Ministry told Reuters yesterday that the country “cannot share samples for free.” “There should be rules of the game for it,” said the spokeswoman, Lily Sulistyowati. “Just imagine, they could research, use and patent the Indonesia strain.” The Financial Times reported the move by Indonesia yesterday; the country has not released a flu sample since late last year.

True, they can obtain IPR protection from it. But the strain itself is noneother but a raw information. What the law gives is the protection after the information is processed.

While there may not be any case for IPR protection toward bird flu strain, holding the sample from being released is a legal thing. But, what would be the benefit for Indonesia?

 

, , ,

Search nano patents with google!

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Good news for patent lawyers, you can now search available patents using google. Look what I found when entering the term "nano": 848 results. Not bad.

Method of fabricating nano-tube, method of manufacturing field-emission type cold cathode, and method of manufacturing display device
US Pat. 6780075 - Filed December 22, 2000 - NEC Corporation
the carbon nano-tube through the entire surface of the emitter. Also, in an
ordinary ion implantation, in case radiation has been performed until the carbon ...

Method of manufacturing nano-gap electrode
US Pat. 7056446 - Filed September 16, 2003 - Communications Research Laboratory, Independent Administrative Institution
35 Generally, in order to manufacture nano-gap electrodes, electron beam lithography ... Thus, when a nano-gap electrode is made using the FIB lithography, ...

NANO-STRUCTURED PARTICLES WITH HIGH THERMAL STABILITY
US Pat. 7125536 - Filed February 6, 2004 - Millennium Inorganic Chemicals
More particularly, the present invention is directed to nano-structured metal-oxide
... 35 40 In one embodiment, the present invention provides nano- 50 ...

Process for preparing nano-porous metal oxide semiconductor layers
US Pat. 6929970 - Filed September 11, 2003 - Agfa-Gevaert
6 at a temperature of 100 to 200° C. According to a thirteenth Spectral Sensitization
of Nano-porous Metal Oxide embodiment of the process, according to the ...

Crystalline polymer nano-particles
US Pat. 6689469 - Filed December 31, 2001 - Bridgestone Corporation
The com-position includes polymer nano-particles having a poly ( ... The nano-particles preferably have a mean average diameter of less than about 100 nm. ...

Nano-scaled graphene plates
US Pat. 7071258 - Filed October 21, 2002 - Nanotek Instruments, Inc.
(54) NANO-SCALED GRAPHENE PLATES (75) Inventors: Bor Z. Jang, Fargo, ...
The process for producing nano-scaled graphene plate material comprises the steps ...

Polyolefin nano-composite
US Pat. 6872791 - Filed December 22, 2001 - Samsung Atofina Co. Ltd.
2 POLYOLEFIN NANO-COMPOSITE a catalyst system comprising () a supported catalyst consisting of (at a polymer, (b) a silicate clay mineral, ...

Semiconductor nano-rod devices
US Pat. 6855606 - Filed February 20, 2003 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. In one aspect, the present invention relates to a method of forming a nano-rod structure for a channel of a field effect transistor. ...

Method for production of nano-porous coatings
US Pat. 6465052 - Filed November 30, 2001 - Nanotek Instruments, Inc.
The term "nano-porous solid" means a solid that contains essentially ...

Nano-porous silica films also can be prepared using a mixture of a solvent and a ...
Composition for preparing substances having nano-pores
US Pat. 6632748 - Filed September 25, 2001 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to a composition for preparing substances having nano-pores. More specifically, the present ...

Try the search yourself here.

Click on the labels to see previous discussion on patents and other intellectual property issues.

 

, , ,

Nanotech the IP issues

Monday, November 20, 2006

I just realized that wikipedia just renewed its entry on nanotech, especially in its Intellectual Property part:
On the structural level, critics of nanotechnology point to a new world of ownership and corporate control opened up by nanotechnology. The claim is that, just as biotechnology's ability to manipulate genes went hand in hand with the patenting of life, so too nanotechnology's ability to manipulate molecules has led to the patenting of matter. The last few years has seen a gold rush to claim patents at the nanoscale. Over 800 nano-related patents were granted in 2003, and the numbers are increasing year to year. Corporations are already taking out broad-ranging patents on nanoscale discoveries and inventions. For example, two corporations, NEC and IBM, hold the basic patents on carbon nanotubes, one of the current cornerstones of nanotechnology. Carbon nanotubes have a wide range of uses, and look set to become crucial to several industries from electronics and computers, to strengthened materials to drug delivery and diagnostics. Carbon nanotubes are poised to become a major traded commodity with the potential to replace major conventional raw materials.
We have had discussions on these matters on the past (which you can view by clicking the labels below). There are also some explanations on these matters on the net. For example, a paper from Lawrence Letham which highlights general legal issues relating to nanotech, a general IP trend on nanotech from Chemical and Engineering magazine, Nanotech patent application in Japan from D. Kanama, Nanotech patent trends by Kallinger, Patent Trend survey from Foley Lardner and US Patent Reform for Nanotech from WLF.

 

,

All about Nano Patenting

Monday, May 8, 2006

There is a very useful blog created a former US Patent examiner Blaise Mouttet in http://tinytechip.blogspot.com/

The Blog discusses in detail, the IP legal aspects of nanotechnology.

 

,

Limiting Patent using TRIZ method, is it possible?

Sunday, March 12, 2006

I have discussed a little in my previous post, my worries that nano-divide will occur if nanotech design technologies are patented. Now I am trying to explain the categorization of "degree" of invention in order to value its importance. Presumably, if a degree of an invention can be identified, we will be able to set limitation of IPR protection toward the invention (I hope I am making myself clear with this, its rather difficult for me to say this in words, but the pictures are in my mind).
There is this theory called TRIZ, a Russian acronym for "Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch" or “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS.)” in English. The concept was developed by a Soviet patent specialist, Genrich Altshuller, while working with the erstwhile Soviet navy in the 1970s and 1980s.
As discussed in Rob Millard's blog, according to Altshuller, there are 5 characteristics of findings:

Level 1: Apparent Solution, is a routine problem solved by methods well understood in the field, and probably within the personal knowledge base of the innovator. Probability = 1:10 with 32% of patents fell into this category.

Level 2 : Minor Improvement, renders minor improvement to an existing system, by methods well understood within the field, usually with some compromise and typically utilizing knowledge that would have been available in the innovator’s organization. Probability= 1:100 with about 45% of patents fell into this category.

Level 3 : Major Improvement, constitute fundamental improvements to an existing system by methods from outside the field (i.e. not known within the field) with level 2 compromises and contradictions resolved, typically using knowledge from outside the organization but from elsewhere in the same field (or profession.) A “hit rate” of 1 winner per 1000 ideas is typical with about 18% of patents fell into this category.

Level 4 : New Concept, is a new generation solution using an entirely different and new principle to drive or perform the primary functions of the system. The solution is derived more from pure science or original knowledge than from technology or extrapolation of other applied knowledge. A “hit rate” of 1 winner per 100 000 ideas is typical. About 4% of patents fell into this category.

Level 5 : Pioneering Discovery, is a rare scientific discovery or a pioneering invention involving what is essentially and entirely new system. A “hit rate” of 1 winner per 1 million ideas is typical. About 1% of patents fell into this category.

Imagine what will happen if "Level 5" Nanotechnology designs are patented. Wouldn't that prevent the tech's own proliferation and development? My idea is, what if we just liberate any Nanotech design capability that can be categorized to Level 5?

What's interesting with Altshuller's categorization is that it attempts to explain degrees of innovation. I believe that there are other ways to explain an innovation's degree, not just through one dimenson such as Altshuller's but also through three or five dimensions. We can add "impacts" as the second dimension in addition to degree.

The current patenting standards and examinations are too rigid so I dont think that it can be used in the post MNT societies. I would strongly suggest that lawyers, inventors and psychologist work together to find new ways in examining patents in order to reform the current patent mechanisms.

Email me (movanet@yahoo.com) or leave a comment here if you are interested in exploring further. I like psychology a lot, although I am a lawyer ;)

Mohamad Mova Al 'Afghani

Technorati Tags : , , , , , , ,

 

, ,

Patent classification for Nanotechnology

Nanotech patent has been discussed in many web so there's probably nothing new, but, I'd like to draw your attention on which part of the regulatory system needs amendment.
Currently, Nanotech products might be patented under USPTO Class 977/Dig1, which, provides disclosure for (i) Nanostructure and chemical compositions of nanostructure; (ii) Device that include at least one nanostructure; (iii) Mathematical algorithms, e.g., computer software, etc., specifically adapted for modeling configurations or properties of nanostructure; (iv) Methods or apparatus for making, detecting, analyzing, or treating nanostructure; and (v) Specified particular uses of nanostructure. The Class define "nanostructure" as an atomic, molecular, or macromolecular structure that (a) Has at least one physical dimension of approximately 1-100 nanometers; and (b) Possesses a special property, provides a special function, or produces a special effect that is uniquely attributable to the structure's nanoscale physical size.
In its note, Class 977 stated at Note 5 that Apparatus for manufacturing nanostructures, nanomaterials and nanodevices under the scope of Class 977 is generally limited to apparatus specifically adapted for creating ordered structures on a nanometer scale, i.e. apparatus for "bottom up" manufacturing to create larger structures from atomic and molecular constituents. Apparatus for "top down" bulk manufacturing of nanostructures, nanomaterials and nanodevices are generally excluded from this Class.
This indicates that this specific class might be applied to Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT). The difficulties with this classification will arises as this class also patented Nanotechnology Design Software (See Point iii: Mathematical algorithms, e.g., computer software, etc., specifically adapted for modeling configurations or properties of nanostructure.
Software patenting has created many problems as it (i) prevent creativity/modifications (ii) halt the economy/free movement of ideas and (iii) may create nano-divide. I call upon nanotechnologists and lawyers to quickly formulate a win-win solution for nanotech intellectual property protection as an alternative of software patent.
Mohamad Mova Al 'Afghani