Forum

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.





Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Patents
MaryM
Elite Hybrid
Posts: 436
Permalink
Post Patents
on: October 22, 2013, 12:24
Quote

Yes, there are many patent issues, I know. And different types of plant protection. But just to get my head around the data from one source that studied it, I took a look at their numbers of plant gene patents based this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657391

Graff GD, Phillips D, Lei Z, Oh S, Nottenburg C, Pardey PG. Not quite a myriad
of gene patents. Nat Biotechnol. 2013 May;31(5):404-10. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2568.
PubMed PMID: 23657391.

Their Table 1 lists the "Top 25 consolidated assignee portfolios of the 15,359 gene patents granted in the United States, by patent count."

It lists the total number of patents, and the breakdown by human/other mammal/other animal/plant/micro-organism/synthetic.

Now--some of the plants that concern people may have human genes in plants, or could be synthetic, so I'm not sure that is covered here in sufficient detail. But just to stick with their data, I'm considering the plant gene patents based on this table.

What I did: I took the total number of patents from the "Number granted" column. I took the percent of patents that were in the plant column. This gave me a presumed number of patents.

Does this look right as the setup?

Assignee	Number of plant gene patents	total patents  granted	% plant	% conv	calculated number of patents
DuPont/Pioneer	510.264	746	68.4	0.684	510.264
Monsanto	148.289	257	57.7	0.577	148.289
BASF	103.332	158	65.4	0.654	103.332
Univ of CA	71.604	351	20.4	0.204	71.604
Bayer	61.2	204	30	0.3	61.2
Univ of WA	52.49	145	36.2	0.362	52.49
Novartis	19.584	306	6.4	0.064	19.584
Pfizer	12.74	364	3.5	0.035	12.74
Sanofi-Aventis	4.84	242	2	0.02	4.84
Johns Hopkins	2.921	127	2.3	0.023	2.921
US DHHS	2.718	302	0.9	0.009	2.718

Can someone check my numbers? Is this sound?

What this gives me is this view of these patents:

Image

Bill Price
Elite Hybrid
Posts: 267
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 22, 2013, 14:00
Quote

Looks sound, if I understand you correctly. Does this mean we should start making Occupy DuPont signs?

ChrisK
Wild Accession
Posts: 9
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 22, 2013, 15:14
Quote

Hmm, not sure on this one. I think it might be more informative if it was broken down by patents claiming use in a transgenic plant. That seems to be what most of the hand wringers are (mistakenly) worried about i.e "control of the food supply". Also, not sure why source of the gene is important. A transgenic plant is protected regardless.

MaryM
Elite Hybrid
Posts: 436
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 22, 2013, 15:38
Quote

Well, the shouting I hear is that there shouldn't be any patents on life. Period. But for this purpose I just took the plant ones. It's even a smaller fraction of gene patents in Monsanto's hands if you look at the overall picture. Univ of CA and US DHHS are ahead of them in total patents.

That "no patents on life" applies to the Myriad patents on BRCA genes, bacterial genes in plants, whatever. They are also worried about bee patents too.

It's hard to imagine a graphic that gets at all of that, and I don't have a source that does just transgenic plants. But with that said, there are other legal restrictions on plant use that wouldn't be covered under a list of patented transgenic plants. It would be fascinating to see that breakdown.

And yes Pdiff--Occupy DuPont is the message it seems :)

ChrisK
Wild Accession
Posts: 9
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 22, 2013, 18:29
Quote

Exactly, so I'm not sure what the message is that you are trying to convey by restricting to plant genes.

Quote from MaryM on October 22, 2013, 15:38

That "no patents on life" applies to the Myriad patents on BRCA genes, bacterial genes in plants, whatever. They are also worried about bee patents too.

MaryM
Elite Hybrid
Posts: 436
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 22, 2013, 21:26
Quote

But if I include all the other ones, the argument will be that those are medical stuff and that's different because Monsanto is such a different case. I think it's safe to say the plant genes are most likely to be used in plant applications.

I can do the other one and we can look at that too. I'll try that later this week.

Tom
Cultivar
Posts: 57
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 23, 2013, 03:54
Quote

Do patents on promoter sequences fall under the term "gene patents" as well? On one hand there is is no cDNA to be had from a non-transcribed region but on the other hand they tend have clear applications for regulated expression of transgenes.

ChrisK
Wild Accession
Posts: 9
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 23, 2013, 20:30
Quote

Promoters etc. are patentable material if generally claimed as part of a human-made invention e.g. a plant transformation construct.

Rachael-
Ludwick
Elite Hybrid
Posts: 125
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 23, 2013, 21:53
Quote

Nice little graph Mary!

MaryM
Elite Hybrid
Posts: 436
Permalink
Post Re: Patents
on: October 26, 2013, 16:44
Quote

Ok, so here is the full list of the holders from the Table 1 of that same paper. This is just "gene" patents. This now includes all of the species (or synthetic) in their table. The title of the table is:

Top 25 consolidated assignee portfolios of the 15,359 gene patents granted in the United States, by patent count.

The data (this is the first 2 columns of their table, any errors in transcription are mine):

Assignee portfolio	Number granted total, US gene patents
DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred	764
GlaxoSmithKline	534
Roche	483
Incyte	468
Pfizer	364
Univ of California	351
Isis Pharmaceuticals	350
Merck	338
Novarits	306
US Dept Health & Human Services	302
Takeda Pharmaceuticals	263
Monsanto	257
Bristol-Myers Squibb	243
Sanofi-Aventis	242
Amgen	239
Human Genome Sciences	237
Bayer	204
BASF	158
Univ of Washington	145
Life Technologies	140
Institut Pasteur	136
Novo Nordisk 	135
Johns Hopkins University	127
University of Texas	126
Eli Lilly	125
Pages: [1] 2
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.104 seconds.