Participants

In order to discuss the issues around intellectual property rights and synthetic biology, we attended an event hosted by BioPeople and had a question and answer session with the following speakers. Our discussion focused around the impact that the recent Myriad Genetics US Supreme Court ruling would have on synthetic biology.

• Jakob Krag Nielsen, IP lawyer at Rønne & Lundgren
• Michael Cohen, IP lawyer at Gray Plant Moody
• Thomas Tscherning, director at TTO of Aarhus University

Background: 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.

Summary

The discussion gave us an interesting perspective on the way that people outside academia view patents and IP law.

Patents can be granted on any useful technology that is novel and not obvious.

We also dug into the terms of the Biobrick Public Agreement, and ...

Interview

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.

Are there provisions in patent law for academic or personal use?

Jakob: In Europe, you cannot prevent reverse engineering for interoperability

Part of the ruling states that the splicing of introns from the genes is a factor in the 'artificiality' of the cDNA construct -- does this limit patentability of prokaryotic genes since they don't have introns?

All: Declined to comment

The information content of cDNA is the same as the template RNA (after intron splicing) and is patentable, but mRNA which has the same information content as the original DNA is not patentable. Thoughts?

Michael: Agree, the information content is not the important part.