Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
> Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein > molecule be patented. Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins. There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too. regards, Chris Chris Morris chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634 Mobile: 07921-717915 Skype: chrishgmorris http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury, Warrington, WA4 4AD UK
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
Hi. A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are not present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have been published before you file your patent application. Regards, - Francisco 2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris : > > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein > molecule be patented. > > Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a > molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small > molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins. > There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too. > > regards, > Chris > > Chris Morris > chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk > Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634 > Mobile: 07921-717915 > Skype: chrishgmorris > http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris > STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury, > Warrington, WA4 4AD UK > -- Francisco Tenjo
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
Realistically, if you live in the US and 5 SCOTUS judges agree you can patent anything. On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 09:45 Francisco Tenjo wrote: > Hi. > > A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are not > present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the > case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you > make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have > been published before you file your patent application. > > Regards, > > - Francisco > > 2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris : > >> > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein >> molecule be patented. >> >> Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a >> molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small >> molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins. >> There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too. >> >> regards, >> Chris >> >> Chris Morris >> chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk >> Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634 >> Mobile: 07921-717915 >> Skype: chrishgmorris >> http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris >> STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury, >> Warrington, WA4 4AD UK >> > > > > -- > Francisco Tenjo >
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings? Thanks! Cheng On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:33 AM, James Phillips wrote: > Realistically, if you live in the US and 5 SCOTUS judges agree you can > patent anything. > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 09:45 Francisco Tenjo wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are >> not present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the >> case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you >> make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have >> been published before you file your patent application. >> >> Regards, >> >> - Francisco >> >> 2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris : >> >>> > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein >>> molecule be patented. >>> >>> Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a >>> molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small >>> molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins. >>> There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too. >>> >>> regards, >>> Chris >>> >>> Chris Morris >>> chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk >>> Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634 >>> Mobile: 07921-717915 >>> Skype: chrishgmorris >>> http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris >>> STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, >>> Daresbury, Warrington, WA4 4AD UK >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Francisco Tenjo >> > -- - Cheng Zhang
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
You cannot patent the “binding site” because it is found in nature (you did not invent it, you discovered it and patents are only granted for inventions). I think you could patent compounds that bind that site if they are not the exact natural ligands. - Francisco On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:14 PM Cheng Zhang wrote: > > A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel > ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could > you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such > findings? > > Thanks! > > Cheng > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:33 AM, James Phillips < > phillipsjames...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Realistically, if you live in the US and 5 SCOTUS judges agree you can >> patent anything. >> >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 09:45 Francisco Tenjo wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are >>> not present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the >>> case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you >>> make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have >>> been published before you file your patent application. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> - Francisco >>> >>> 2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris : >>> > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein molecule be patented. Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins. There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too. regards, Chris Chris Morris chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634 Mobile: 07921-717915 Skype: chrishgmorris http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury, Warrington, WA4 4AD UK >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Francisco Tenjo >>> >> > > > -- > - > Cheng Zhang > -- Francisco Tenjo
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
I second Gert's thoughts Best, Abhishek On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend wrote: > A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel >> ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could >> you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such >> findings? >> > > I would say that the best one can do with important novel > data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can > benefit from it. > > Gert >
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
> to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention, and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone (in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems a reasonable proposition…. Best, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Abhishek Anan Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents I second Gert's thoughts Best, Abhishek On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl> > wrote: A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings? I would say that the best one can do with important novel data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Gert
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives including prizes as an alternative to patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_areas_for_prize_models_over_patents On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp wrote: > > to publish it so the world can benefit from it. > > Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention > > a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the > invention, > > and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get > > rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone > > (in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and > having > > an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems > > a reasonable proposition…. > > > > Best, BR > > > > *From:* CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of > *Abhishek > Anan > *Sent:* Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31 > *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > *Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents > > > > I second Gert's thoughts > > Best, > > Abhishek > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend > wrote: > > A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel > ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could > you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such > findings? > > > I would say that the best one can do with important novel > data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can > benefit from it. > > Gert > > > -- patr...@douglas.co.ukDouglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to the university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law which says that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So giving up IPR can be problematical and could leave an academic in breach of contract though I don't suppose that most universities would pursue this. Recently, at UCL we were presented with new IPR policy which says that /all/ /patentable IP created during the course of our duties/ is owned the university. We are challenging this through our academic board (senate) and have managed to get a Academic Board members to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be interesting to hear what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I have heard that in Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get their IPR policy rewritten by invoking the /1926 Slavery Convention, /which states that slavery is defined as "/the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised/". Their augment was that by seeking ownership over an academic's intellectual property was tantamount to seeking ownership over the academic. All the best, Alun On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote: There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives including prizes as an alternative to patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_areas_for_prize_models_over_patents On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp <mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com>> wrote: > to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention, and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone (in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems a reasonable proposition…. Best, BR *From:* CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>] *On Behalf Of *Abhishek Anan *Sent:* Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31 *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> *Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents I second Gert's thoughts Best, Abhishek On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>> wrote: A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings? I would say that the best one can do with important novel data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Gert -- patr...@douglas.co.uk <mailto:patr...@douglas.co.uk> Douglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36 -- Dr Alun R. Coker Senior Lecturer Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research University College London The Cruciform Building London WC1E 6BT Tel: 020 7679 6703 Ext 46703 Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
Dear all, one of the most interesting documents in recent times on the matter of translational research and IP comes from the Wellcome Trust: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/transforming-uk-translation-20170725.pdf In particular, under committments 4-8, they spell out - although implicitly - the push for a change in which IP is handled in Universities. Let's see which way it goes but I remain hopeful with best wishes Pietro = Dr. Pietro Roversi As of July 2018 I shall take up a two-year LISCB and Leicester-Wellcome Trust ISSF Fellowship at Leicester University: http://www2.le.ac.uk/institutes/liscb Until June 2018: Oxford Glycobiology Institute Department of Biochemistry University of Oxford South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QU England - UK Tel. 0044 1865 275339 From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Alun R Coker [alun.co...@ucl.ac.uk] Sent: 05 November 2017 20:35 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to the university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law which says that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So giving up IPR can be problematical and could leave an academic in breach of contract though I don't suppose that most universities would pursue this. Recently, at UCL we were presented with new IPR policy which says that all patentable IP created during the course of our duties is owned the university. We are challenging this through our academic board (senate) and have managed to get a Academic Board members to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be interesting to hear what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I have heard that in Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get their IPR policy rewritten by invoking the 1926 Slavery Convention, which states that slavery is defined as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". Their augment was that by seeking ownership over an academic's intellectual property was tantamount to seeking ownership over the academic. All the best, Alun On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote: There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives including prizes as an alternative to patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_areas_for_prize_models_over_patents On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com>> wrote: > to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention, and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone (in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems a reasonable proposition…. Best, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>] On Behalf Of Abhishek Anan Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents I second Gert's thoughts Best, Abhishek On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>> wrote: A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings? I would say that the best one can do with important novel data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Gert -- patr...@douglas.co.uk<mailto:patr...@douglas.co.uk>Douglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36 -- Dr Alun R. Coker Senior Lecturer Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research University College London The Cruciform Building London WC1E 6BT Tel: 020 7679 6703 Ext 46703 Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed>
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
One unintended consequence of an increasingly translational research focused agenda is that science is steadily drifting towards milestone-oriented contract research. We are almost there already, with practically every grant gendered and mile-stoned with trumped-up relevance to the greater good of society. Curiosity driven or high-risk science for the sake of new insights beyond the directly applicable is becoming exceedingly hard to fund. There is not much difference anymore between a CRO contract and a grant (except nobody really takes the academic milestone table seriously) and non-delivery by academia rarely has consequences. That might change with hardened translationalist influence, so let's be careful what we wish for.. Best, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Pietro Roversi Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:34 AM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents Dear all, one of the most interesting documents in recent times on the matter of translational research and IP comes from the Wellcome Trust: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/transforming-uk-translation-20170 725.pdf In particular, under committments 4-8, they spell out - although implicitly - the push for a change in which IP is handled in Universities. Let's see which way it goes but I remain hopeful with best wishes Pietro = Dr. Pietro Roversi As of July 2018 I shall take up a two-year LISCB and Leicester-Wellcome Trust ISSF Fellowship at Leicester University: http://www2.le.ac.uk/institutes/liscb Until June 2018: Oxford Glycobiology Institute Department of Biochemistry University of Oxford South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QU England - UK Tel. 0044 1865 275339 _ From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Alun R Coker [alun.co...@ucl.ac.uk] Sent: 05 November 2017 20:35 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to the university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law which says that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So giving up IPR can be problematical and could leave an academic in breach of contract though I don't suppose that most universities would pursue this. Recently, at UCL we were presented with new IPR policy which says that all patentable IP created during the course of our duties is owned the university. We are challenging this through our academic board (senate) and have managed to get a Academic Board members to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be interesting to hear what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I have heard that in Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get their IPR policy rewritten by invoking the 1926 Slavery Convention, which states that slavery is defined as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". Their augment was that by seeking ownership over an academic's intellectual property was tantamount to seeking ownership over the academic. All the best, Alun On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote: There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives including prizes as an alternative to patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_area s_for_prize_models_over_patents On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com> > wrote: > to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Isn't that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention, and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone (in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit.) seems a reasonable proposition.. Best, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> ] On Behalf Of Abhishek Anan Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents I second Gert's thoughts Best, Abhishek On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl> > wrote: A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings? I would say that the best one can do wit
Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
>>Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention, and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. I agree with this especially because someone else is, after all, going to commercialize it and charge money for it. Best, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Abhishek Anan Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents I second Gert's thoughts Best, Abhishek On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>> wrote: A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings? I would say that the best one can do with important novel data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Gert