{"id":184,"date":"2019-07-22T08:13:23","date_gmt":"2019-07-22T08:13:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/videaimip.com\/blog\/?p=184"},"modified":"2024-07-23T06:12:25","modified_gmt":"2024-07-23T06:12:25","slug":"can-genes-be-patented","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/videaimip.com\/blog\/can-genes-be-patented\/","title":{"rendered":"Gene Patent : Expressing the Truth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WHAT DOES A PATENT OVER A GENE MEAN?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A patent <\/a>for a gene or gene patent means ownership and exclusive rights for a specific DNA\/RNA sequence by an individual, organization, or corporation, who claims to have originally isolated a natural gene sequence and altered through gene engineering technologies to obtain a known function. This means ownership of the specific nucleotide composition of the gene, its nucleotide sequence, the process for obtaining or using, or a combination of such claims.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It means exclusive rights of the owner of the patent to dictate terms for use or commercial exploitation of the gene for 20 years. This also implies that patent owner (founder individual or institutes or companies) has sole ownership of genetic testing for patented genes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ARE NATURALLY OCCURING GENES PATENTABLE?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Until recently, in Untied States of America, a naturally\noccurring biological substance was patentable (falling under the category of\nutility patents) if they were sufficiently “isolated” from their\nnaturally occurring states. The first human product to be patented was purified\nform of adrenaline in 1906. Then started the Cohen-Boyer patenting and\nlicensing era in 1970s where patents for recombinant DNA and method for\nproducing the same were given. These patents covered inventions for splicing\ngenes to make recombinant proteins that are foundational to the biotechnology\nindustry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A landmark case in the field of biotechnology pertaining\nto organisms as a whole was made with the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case in 1980,\nwherein, it was upheld that a newly created living organism, a bacterium for\ndigesting crude oil in oil spills, was patentable and the first patent for an\norganism as a whole was provided because the DNA of Chakrabarty’s organism was\nmodified, and truly man-made. This started the era of patenting of genetically\nmodified genes and organisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was followed by several other patents in the field\nof monoclonal antibodies, transgenic mice, isolation of cancer-related genes\nand their usage and many more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the 2013 case of Association for Molecular\nPathology v. Myriad Genetics challenged the validity of gene patents in United States\nof America. Prior to the case, the U.S. Patent Office accepted patents on\nisolated DNA sequences as a composition of matter. It was on 13th<\/sup>\nJune, 2013 that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes\ncannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a “product of nature.”\nPrior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme\nCourt’s decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible\nfor research and for commercial genetic testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHAT IS PATENTABLE? WHICH GENES ARE PATENTABLE?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The 2013 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad\nGenetics case clearly stated that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S.\nbecause DNA is a “product of nature”i.e. any naturally occurring gene\nis not patentable. However, any gene\/nucleotide sequence which has been\nmanipulated in the lab can be still patented, because this brings the\nsufficient human intervention factor into the gene\/nucleotide sequence. Hence, synthetically\nmutated or genetically modified genes which do not occur naturally in nature and\ntheir products are patentable, example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n