Report September 2009

From Commons Based Research
Revision as of 10:16, 25 September 2009 by AClearwater (talk | contribs) (added questions)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Status Report, ICP Project

Diagnostic Kits

General Status

  • We have created a glossary of research vocabulary that has a allowed us to better define the field.
  • We have developed a bibliography with literary reviews of the key articles.
    • We have found that genetic diagnostic kits are probably best suited for this study
  • We are developing a better understanding of the intellectual property landscape and have established that a wide variety of protections are used including: patent, trade secrets, NDAs, Non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality agreements. Economics of IP & IP
    • Patents
      • History of the market shows a trend towards consolidation (Diagnostic Test Service Commercialization in Multiplex and Esoteric Testing)
      • There has been "an increase in patents on the inputs to drug discovery (“research tools”)." (Cohen et. al., 2003)
        • no substantially barriers have been found as a result of this increase in patents on the inputs to drug discovery (Cohen et. al., 2003)
        • no substantially barriers found to university research (Cohen et. al., 2003)
        • THE EXCEPTION: "Restrictions on the use of patented genetic diagnostics, where we see some evidence of patents interfering with university research, are an important exception. There is, also, some evidence of delays associated with negotiating access to patented research tools, and there are areas in which patents over targets limit access and where access to foundational discoveries can be restricted. There are also cases in which research is redirected to areas with more intellectual property (IP) freedom. Still, the vast majority of respondents say that there are no cases in which valuable research projects were stopped because of IP problems relating to research inputs." (Cohen et. al., 2003)
      • The perception of rising patent litigation rates in the area of DNA-based patents is most likely false (Mills, A.E. & Tereskerz, P., 2008)
      • A patent thicket?
        • Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation (US National Research Council of the National Academies) which shows that there is currently no substantial evidence of a patent thicket.
        • On the other hand, patent holders of gene based diagnostics are more active in asserting their patents which gives some support for the conclusion that diagnostic kit research is currently being inhibited. (Esther van Zimmeren et al. 2006)
      • Justifiable scope of protection for gene patents
        • This topic is rarely discussed in the literature (Verbeure, et al., 2005) but the implications of broad or narrow claim recognition are important to our research.
    • Licenses
      • Four licensing approaches: (Geertrui Van Overwalle et al., 2005)
        • Free access to the genetic sequences but royalty payments for the commercial test kits
        • Licensing to laboratories at a rate that makes the commercial test kit more economical
        • Exclusively licensing to a limited number of laboratories
        • Biological Innovation for Open Society license that makes improvements to the patent shared as a way to facilitate cooperative invention.
      • Licensing Behavior
        • The likelihood of granting a license for patented DNA sequenceswas was found to be similar for firms and nonprofits but nonprofits were far more likely to grant exclusive licenses. This use of exclusive licensing demands further study to find out if the use of these licenses is justified or merely a default practice with little substantive justification. (Henry, M. et al. 2002)
        • Changes in patent ownership and licensing complexities can have measurable effect on the development and performance of genetic testing. (Merz, J.F. et al., 2002)
    • Trade Secret
      • The importance of this was made clear in our interview with Andrew W Torrance
      • Trade Secret is used to early development, and it supplements patent protection later in the value chain
      • Strong confidentially, non-solicitation, assignment, & Noncompete Agreements enable the protection of Trade Secret data.
      • Even with a patent license, the knowledge transferred by the patent is often not enough to reverse engineer

Work Completed

Work Partially Completed

Work Remaining

Research Methodology in use

  • Case studies
  • Literature review
  • Industry analysis
  • Business reports and press releases
  • University reports and press releases

Problems and Considerations

  • How can we learn more about the use of trade secret protection of data?
  • What information should we aim to obtain through interviews?
  • Should we focus on genetic diagnostic tests exclusively?
  • Are gene patents used in a method similar to drug patents?
  • Should research on patent pools and clearinghouses be developed further or is the current research sufficient?

Next Steps

  • Continue to add information to the research methodology. Specifically, increase information about University contributions.
  • Continue to interview experts in the field
  • Look into the Bilski case (can't patent human steps) because this may determine the patentability of claims
Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/?title=Report_September_2009&oldid=4316"