Currently the technology of gene editing CRISP-Cas9 is being addressed in counts over the matter who owns the patents. As a result progress by making use of this technology may be hampered. Similarly, we have seen in the past patent claims on PCR, DNA sequences, proteins and research antibodies. Such claims also have an adverse effect since research on the subjects become more expensive by royalties for the patents in place.
Where should the border be between waived royalties for research purposes and commercial exploitation when an invention is used at larger scale? Should be redefine the term invention for patent claims and should we bar discoveries existing in nature from patent claims?
Ales, this rule is standard evaded by a mutation in the gene to be involved in disease thus claiming the DNA sequence, the protein sequence and all antibodies generated to any protein derived from this gene. Usually the discovery of involvement to a disease is claimed the invention. At best, the detection method of the mutation is claimed as an invention, but this does not prevent representatives of the patent owner to chase antibody vendors.
Hi Everyone:
Saw this question bit late hence thought of adding into it.
Mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory cannot be patented but application of the said principle and / or theory resulting into a novel process / product capable of industrial application could be protected under patent.
DNA sequences per se are not patent-able unless the same codes for a functional protein which evidences the innovation within it.
Best
Shaklain Khurshid
Indian Patent Agent
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Immunology
- Antibodies