PURPOSE: Fragmented ownership of diagnostic gene patents has the potential to create an "anticommons" in the area of genomic diagnostics, making it difficult and expensive to assemble the patent rights necessary to develop a panel of genetic tests. The objectives of this study were to identify US patents that protect existing panels of genetic tests, describe how (or if) test providers acquired rights to these patents, and determine if fragmented patent ownership has inhibited the commercialization of these panels. METHODS: As case studies, we selected four clinical applications of genetic testing (cystic fibrosis, maturity-onset diabetes of the young, long QT syndrome, and hereditary breast cancer) that use tests protected by > or =3 US patents. We summarized publically available information on relevant patents, test providers, licenses, and litigation. RESULTS: For each case study, all tests of major genes/mutations were patented, and at least one party held the collective rights to conduct all relevant tests, often as a result of licensing agreements. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that fragmentation of patent rights has inhibited commercialization of genetic testing services. However, as knowledge of genetic susceptibility increases, it will be important to consider the potential consequences of fragmented ownership of diagnostic gene patents.
PURPOSE: Fragmented ownership of diagnostic gene patents has the potential to create an "anticommons" in the area of genomic diagnostics, making it difficult and expensive to assemble the patent rights necessary to develop a panel of genetic tests. The objectives of this study were to identify US patents that protect existing panels of genetic tests, describe how (or if) test providers acquired rights to these patents, and determine if fragmented patent ownership has inhibited the commercialization of these panels. METHODS: As case studies, we selected four clinical applications of genetic testing (cystic fibrosis, maturity-onset diabetes of the young, long QT syndrome, and hereditary breast cancer) that use tests protected by > or =3 US patents. We summarized publically available information on relevant patents, test providers, licenses, and litigation. RESULTS: For each case study, all tests of major genes/mutations were patented, and at least one party held the collective rights to conduct all relevant tests, often as a result of licensing agreements. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that fragmentation of patent rights has inhibited commercialization of genetic testing services. However, as knowledge of genetic susceptibility increases, it will be important to consider the potential consequences of fragmented ownership of diagnostic gene patents.
Authors: Mildred K Cho; Samantha Illangasekare; Meredith A Weaver; Debra G B Leonard; Jon F Merz Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Mark I McCarthy; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Lon R Cardon; David B Goldstein; Julian Little; John P A Ioannidis; Joel N Hirschhorn Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: P J Schwartz; S G Priori; C Spazzolini; A J Moss; G M Vincent; C Napolitano; I Denjoy; P Guicheney; G Breithardt; M T Keating; J A Towbin; A H Beggs; P Brink; A A Wilde; L Toivonen; W Zareba; J L Robinson; K W Timothy; V Corfield; D Wattanasirichaigoon; C Corbett; W Haverkamp; E Schulze-Bahr; M H Lehmann; K Schwartz; P Coumel; R Bloise Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Kathryn Hale Coats; Elizabeth Swisher; Sunday M Stray; Jake Higgins; Kevin C Roach; Jessica Mandell; Ming K Lee; Sona Ciernikova; Lenka Foretova; Pavel Soucek; Mary-Claire King Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-03-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael S Watson; Garry R Cutting; Robert J Desnick; Deborah A Driscoll; Katherine Klinger; Michael Mennuti; Glenn E Palomaki; Bradley W Popovich; Victoria M Pratt; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Charles M Strom; C Sue Richards; David R Witt; Wayne W Grody Journal: Genet Med Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 8.822