"
Team:DTU-Denmark/IP and Synthetic Biology
From 2013.igem.org
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* Thomas Tscherning, director at TTO of Aarhus University | * Thomas Tscherning, director at TTO of Aarhus University | ||
| - | Our discussion focused around the impact that the recent Myriad Genetics Supreme Court ruling would have on synthetic biology. | + | Our discussion focused around the impact that the recent Myriad Genetics US Supreme Court ruling would have on synthetic biology. |
== Myriad Genetics Ruling Summary == | == Myriad Genetics Ruling Summary == | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
====Why aren't genes subject to copyright instead of patent law?==== | ====Why aren't genes subject to copyright instead of patent law?==== | ||
| - | Jakob: | + | Jakob: According to IP law in Denmark, technology can only be patented, it cannot be copyrighted. |
Michael: In the US, no one has tried to copyright genes, but it could be possible. | Michael: In the US, no one has tried to copyright genes, but it could be possible. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
All: Not going to speculate | All: Not going to speculate | ||
| + | ==== Are the mutants that we are creating patentable?==== | ||
| + | Jakob: Recombining genes in a novel order is sufficient modification to expect that a patent would be granted | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Is this ruling in the best interest of society? ==== | ||
| + | Michael: At the end of the day, funding for genetic research is not going away. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== | ||
{{:Team:DTU-Denmark/Templates/EndPage}} | {{:Team:DTU-Denmark/Templates/EndPage}} | ||
Revision as of 17:46, 12 September 2013
Discussion on IP and Synthetic Biology
Participants
In order to discuss the issues around intellectual property rights and synthetic biology, we met with:
- Jakob Krag Nielsen, IP lawyer at Rønne & Lundgren
- Michael Cohen, IP lawyer at Gray Plant Moody
- Thomas Tscherning, director at TTO of Aarhus University
Our discussion focused around the impact that the recent Myriad Genetics US Supreme Court ruling would have on synthetic biology.
Myriad Genetics Ruling Summary
This ruling states that while naturally occurring human genes cannot be patented, cDNA which is derived from a human gene can be.
Discussion
Why aren't genes subject to copyright instead of patent law?
Jakob: According to IP law in Denmark, technology can only be patented, it cannot be copyrighted. Michael: In the US, no one has tried to copyright genes, but it could be possible.
The ruling was applied only to the non-patentability of human genes; is it reasonable to expect that it will be extended to all natural genes?
All: Not going to speculate
Are the mutants that we are creating patentable?
Jakob: Recombining genes in a novel order is sufficient modification to expect that a patent would be granted
Is this ruling in the best interest of society?
Michael: At the end of the day, funding for genetic research is not going away.
====
