Patents, Genes and the Future of Biotech

The decision yesterday rendered by Federal District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet that invalidated the patents issued to Myriad Genetics for the breast cancer marker genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is analogous to the “shot heard round the world” that kicked off the American Revolution in 1775. While it isn’t clear whether or not the decision will stand (Myriad has appealed the ruling), it does have the potential to change the way in which life sciences companies may operate in the future.

Patents are the lifeblood of the biotechnology industry. Because of this, scientists, university technology transfer offices and many would be entrepreneurs have sought to patent any and all ideas, inventions and potential products that may serve as the basis for a life sciences community. This has resulted in the issuance of a surfeit of composition of matter patents for many human and non-human DNA sequences that encode potential industrial and therapeutic proteins.

Prior to the sequencing of the human genome, many scientists and entrepreneurs had compelling and legitimate arguments to patent newly discovered DNA sequences. While these sequences existed in nature prior to their discovery, their commercial potential could not be fully realized until the genes and their products were isolated and fully characterized which generally required many years of scientific study. In contrast, however, the advent of whole genome sequencing allows scientists, to easily identify genes and their products that are likely to have future commercial potential and value. Because this renders inventions that make use of the genes or proteins themselves obvious, composition of matter patents are no longer feasible or warranted. Also, while composition of matter patents may have been lucrative in the past, it is usually secondary process patents that extend the commercial lifecycle of protein-based drugs. For example, the composition of matter patent for recombinant erythropoietin (held by Amgen) expired in 2004. However, Amgen has recombinant erythropoietin process and production patents that preclude competition in the US until 2017.

While composition of matter patents may be important for therapeutic proteins, the same isn’t true for diagnostic products. In fact, composition of matter patents in this case (like Myriad Genetics patents for BRAC1 and BRACA2) tend to stifle innovation and create monopolies for the companies that own them. The elimination of composition of matter patents for DNA sequences will give scientists the requisite freedom to operate and necessary creativity to develop new tests and uses for novel genes and their products.

To that end, the diagnostic industry would be well served if it adopted the open source business model pioneered by the software industry. This has resulted in the creation and development of new products, commercial applications and business opportunities that have exceeded the expectations of the companies that developed the original code. I see no reason why the same approach couldn’t be used in the diagnostic and personalized medicine industries as they continue to mature.  After all, the human genome is the ultimate source code and allowing free and unfettered access to its contents will undoubtedly result in many innovative, useful and previously unimagined commercial scientific and healthcare advances in the future.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

 

Pharma Beware: Google Sidewiki is Spreading Like...... H1N1 (not)!

For the past several weeks, the EyeonFDA blog has been reporting on the possible regulatory impact of Google’s Sidewiki on life sciences companies. For those of you who may not be familiar with Sidewiki  (released in late September) it is a new feature of the Google toolbar which can turn a static web 1.0 website into an interactive web 2.0 experience by allowing website visitors to leave comments behind.

When you use side-wiki, you have the ability to leave your comments and associate them with a website whether or not the website owner has enabled commenting.  Since the comments are maintained by Google, there is no direct relationship with the website.  Basically, anybody who visits a website that has Sidewiki enabled can say or comment on whatever they like and immortalize it (until Google removes it) for the entire world to see. Apparently, this doesn’t sit well with many website owners and Google purportedly recently release code to disable Sidewiki at websites that don’t want to support it. However, it isn’t clear how robust the anti-sidewiki code is!

While I haven’t formulated an opinion on Side Wiki yet (mostly because it isn’t that interesting to me), it does represent a regulatory dilemma for life sciences companies with marketed drugs and devices. According to today’s EyeonFDA post “If someone writes of an adverse event on a Sidewiki, or promotes an off-label use, it is now on the company's home page.  Is the company under a duty to monitor and correct such misinformation or if they do, do they incur liability for doing so?  It is a conundrum - and there is no insight apparent from the FDA on the matter.” Further, most life sciences companies have yet to craft a legal or regulatory policy for Sidewiki usage. 

EyeonFDA has been assiduously monitoring life sciences company websites for the appearance of Sidewiki. To date EyeonFDA has found it on the following company websites:

  1. Abbott
  2. Amgen
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Bayer
  5. Baxter
  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  7. GSK
  8. Johnson & Johnson
  9. Lilly
  10. Novartis
  11. Novo Nordisk
  12. Pfizer
  13. Roche
  14. Sanofi-Aventis
  15. Takeda

While Google would like everyone to believe that Sidewiki is taking the Internet by storm and spreading like the H1N1 virus, a show of hands at yesterdays e-Patient Connections 2009 meeting in Philly, which was attended by many computer geeks and social media enthusiasts, revealed that about4 out of about 150 had heard of it! Nevertheless, it is out there and life sciences companies would be well advised to formulate internal legal and regulatory guidelines despite the fact that FDA hasn’t issued any guidance on its use.

P.S. Shortly after I posted this, @pharmaguy alerted me to an article that appeared on the today's online PharmaExec.com entitled "SideWiki: What's Pharma To Do"?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Commenting