Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, 1215 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Trends Biotechnol. 2010 Nov;28(11):548-51. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.08.005.
The recent decision in the case Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. shocked the biotechnology industry. Although the case could be overturned on appeal, it will probably change how gene patents are written. The effects of the decision might be most strongly felt in the short term by clinical laboratories that develop new genetic tests based on single genes. However, evidence suggests that patents are less effective as an incentive to innovate in the field of genetic diagnostics than for pharmaceuticals. In addition, as genomic technologies move towards whole-genome analysis, policy arguments for patent protection for single genes become less compelling. It is clear that the intellectual property model challenged by the Myriad decision will have to be replaced if new genetic technologies are to achieve their full potential in promoting 'the progress of science and useful arts'.
最近在 Association for Molecular Pathology 等人诉美国专利商标局等人一案中的裁决震惊了生物技术行业。尽管此案可能在上诉中被推翻,但它可能会改变基因专利的撰写方式。该裁决的影响在短期内可能会对基于单个基因开发新遗传检测的临床实验室感受最为强烈。然而,有证据表明,与制药相比,专利在激励基因诊断领域的创新方面的效果较差。此外,随着基因组技术向全基因组分析发展,为单个基因提供专利保护的政策论点的说服力也在减弱。显然,如果要充分发挥新的遗传技术在促进“科学和有益艺术的进步”方面的潜力,那么由 Myriad 案所挑战的知识产权模式将不得不被取代。