5275305
story
Comments: 205 +- Your Rights Online: Doctors Fight Patent On Medical Knowledge on Tuesday July 21 2009, @01:20PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday July 21 2009, @01:20PM
from the no-not-patent-medicine dept.
from the no-not-patent-medicine dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpatents.gif); width:75px; height:54px;
patents
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmedicine.gif); width:64px; height:80px;
medicine
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Doctor's groups, including the AMA and too many others to list, are supporting the Mayo Clinic in the case Prometheus v. Mayo. The Mayo Clinic alleges that the patents in question merely recite a natural phenomenon: the simple fact that the level of metabolites of a drug in a person's body can tell you how a patient is responding to that drug. The particular metabolites in this case are those of thiopurine drugs and the tests are covered by Prometheus Lab's 6,355,623 and 6,680,302 patents. But these aren't the only 'observational' patents in medicine — they're part of a trend where patents are sought to cover any test using the fact that gene XYZ is an indicator for some disease, or that certain chemicals in a blood sample indicate something about a patient's condition. There are even allegations that certain labs have gone so far as to send blood samples to a university lab, order testing for patented indicators, then sue that university for infringement. Naturally, Prometheus Labs sees this whole story differently, arguing that the Mayo Clinic will profit from treating patients with knowledge patented by them. They have their own supporters, too, such as the American Intellectual Property Law Association." Prometheus doesn't seem to be a classic patent troll; they actually perform the tests for which they have obtained patents.
Related Stories
Submission: Doctors Fight Patent on Medical Knowledge by Anonymous Coward
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
A patent on the observation of cessation electrical activity in the heart, resulting in a pulse as a precursor to an eventual absence of a pulse.
In other words...He's dead, Jim.
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:This is the nature of medical science (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of patents is to force people to not use your method. If you invent a hammer for staples and I invent yet another hammer for staples that is fine.
If you invent a test for a certain metabolite and I make another test for the same thing that works in another way, how have I infringed?
To allow patenting the observation that this metabolite can indicate something about your health is absurd. Will scales be banned when I patent observing that obesity is an indicter for a heart disease risk?
Parent
Re:This is the nature of medical science (Score:4, Informative)
The problem here is in trying to patent a trade secret rather than an invention. Patents are intended to cover inventions. Real, working gizmos that operate is a specific fashion. Trade secrets cover processes and information that is of a competitive advantage.
In this case, the two are getting mixed up. The company may have a device to detect certain attributes (which IS patentable) but the fact that the attributes can be measured in order to draw conclusions is inherently unpatentable. If someone else develops a machine for measuring the attributes that works different from your machine... well... tough noodles.
All that can be done is to keep the information a secret. By keeping it secret, it is legally viewed as a "trade secret" which can be contractually protected when sharing with interested parties.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. ;-)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to patent a particular means of testing for the metabolite, that'd be fine(assuming it was non-obvious, and they invented it, and so forth); but the notion of metabolite testing is, at best, something that would once have been patentable and is now common obvious knowledge.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be like claiming that you can't use a generic circuit tester on a patented circuit board because somehow the fact that the circuit board's electrical footprint is unique means picking up the electron flow is patent protected.
It's moronic and ludicrous. What's next, companies patenting molecular spectroscopic signatures? "Oh, I'm sorry, you can't use your mass spectrometer to detect our patented chemical. You have to send the sample to us."
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since when is the name of a law required to have anything to do with the content of the law?
Parent
O to CO2 conversion (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this mean I can patent the method the body uses to convert O2 to C02 and then sue everyone?
I understand the need for patents, but I don't feel discoveries should be patented. If they were to devise a method to test for their discovery, patent that, but not the discovery itself.
patent: new, useful, non-obvious, inventive step (Score:5, Informative)
I understand the need for patents, but I don't feel discoveries should be patented.
A discovery cannot be patented by itself. To be patentable, there is an explicit requirement under US law for an "inventive step" to be taken. A discovery might cover the requirement for non-obviousness, and perhaps the requirement for usefulness, but a discovery is not an invention.
In the case of the cited patents (6,355,623 and 6,680,302), I think the non-obviousness part is severely lacking. Rephrased, their independent claims are for the combination of (i) treating condition X with drug Y, in which (ii) the dose of drug Y is adjusted based on the inferred level of drug Y in the bloodstream. Given that treating condition X with drug Y was already known, the step of adjusting the dose would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art (gastro-intestinal medicine). The method of inference is the "discovery" in question.
Both patents suck, but for other reasons.
Parent
Re:O to CO2 conversion (Score:5, Informative)
"Does this mean I can patent the method the body uses to convert O2 to C02 and then sue everyone?"
No, and I don't see the connection. The patent doesn't cover a natural process of the body; it covers the procedure of looking at the results of that natural process.
It doesn't look to my (admittedly untrained) eyes like a valid patent, but that's because it appears obvious. It essentially seems to say, "Want to know if there's too much or too little of a drug in the patient's system? Then check!" My attitude would vary if there's some sophisticated, non-obvious mechanism behind taking the reading of how much drug is in the system, and they invented that method, and that method is spelled out in the patent...
That the patent "recites a natural phenomenon" is a non-issue to me. Every patent can be boiled down to observations about nature. Every patent is an observation about a useful application of natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc.
Parent
Re:O to CO2 conversion (Score:4, Insightful)
Patenting knowledge is absurd. Patents are there to allow patenting of novel and non-obvious *devices* that can not be easily reverse-engineered. The society has agreed to grant a limited monopoly on creation of a novel and non-obvious device, if its inventor describes how it is made and how it works to enough detail that anyone skilled in the arts could replicate it. That is a patent.
If a device is simple enough that it can be reverse-engineered once it hits the market, there is no insetive for the society to ever grant a patent on such device.
Nowadays we can reverse-engineer almost anything, thus patents are obsolete, it just remains to change the law to reflect this simple fact of life.
Parent
Re:O to CO2 conversion (Score:5, Insightful)
If an invention cannot easily be reverse-engineered, then it does not need the protection of a patent. QED.
"Novel and non-obvious" does not mean "difficult to reverse-engineer".
The cotton gin is a great example. Easily reverse-engineered, but protected by patent nonetheless.
We know it was easily reverse-engineered because several people did just that. Never mind all the claims that Whitney's "invention" was simply the result of reverse-engineering gins in Europe/England.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Test for Money or No Test at All? (Score:4, Insightful)
Naturally, Prometheus Labs sees this whole story differently, arguing that the Mayo Clinic will profit from treating patients with knowledge patented by them.
I think I recall a part in the book Jurassic Park where the man behind the dinosaur research explains why he used Cray computers to read dinosaur DNA and not cure AIDS. Simply put, he could charge whatever he wanted for entrance to a dinosaur park but would probably be lauded as a money hungry monster to charge that same amount to treat AIDS patients. Being that millions of AIDS patients would not be able to afford it.
So we're all going to jump on Prometheus Labs and talk about the scenario in which the Mayo Clinic informs a patient they may have disease X and that they have the ability to test for it, they just can't unless the patient pays $200 to Prometheus Labs or some such surcharge.
On the other hand, the research surrounding statistical analysis of correlation between diseases and body diagnostics will surely skyrocket as people race to patent these things. So, while I'd argue in favor of the Mayo Clinic, I have to admit that I'd rather have the ability to test myself for a disease for $X than to not be able to test for it no matter what the cost.
I guess it's the classic argument for patents. I'd be interested in hearing Prometheus Labs' pricing scheme. A modest one time fee per hospital? A once per use fee? Covered by insurance? What motive do they have to pour over this data and draw these correlations statistically without a monetary incentive of some sort to keep them going/make money?
Re:Test for Money or No Test at All? (Score:5, Informative)
Although I appreciate the distaste of making money off sick people, I don't think that applies. Promethius should be tied to a rock for a giant eagle to eat their livers.
They merely patented something that a "common knowledge" thing in drugs. It's how urine drug screening has worked for 20 years, it's how tons of drug effectiveness tests work (mostly drug screenings). It's a false monopoly, troll or not.
If they invented some sort of new test for the metabolites... like a special litmus stick which would tell you the levels of metabolites, that would be completely different.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The idea of testing metabolite levels is not what the patents claim, though. The patents claim testing for specific levels of a specific metabolite produced by the administration of specific drugs given for a narrow class of conditions.
The immunosuppressant drugs in question (6-mercaptopurine, azathioprine, 6-thioguanine, and 6-methylmercaptopurine riboside) require very careful titration in order to be effective. Too little and they are not therapeutic, too much and they overwhelm the immune system. Thu
Re:Test for Money or No Test at All? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that you're trolling since you're purposefully misunderstanding arguments to keep this thread going, but you make a very good argument for the socialization of this type of research. If a company cannot make a profit without patenting an idea rather than a unique technology, but society finds these ideas useful, then it's time for the NIH to be funded publicly to do this research. Of course, both arguments are predicated on the misconception you're promulgating that this wasn't already a known methodology for testing all sorts of crap in our bodies.
Parent
Very good argument for socializing this research (Score:4, Interesting)
I couldn't have put it better than you just did. We, as a society find it useful to pursue this research, but no company can monetize it without patenting patently un-patentable procedures, so we should socialize the costs of the research. Thankfully, when the free market fails us, we do have other options besides letting some unscrupulous and selfish idiots bend us over a barrel.
Parent
Re:Test for Money or No Test at All? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the way it's supposed to work, but how it's more likely to work is:
1) Another clever person takes your idea, and uses it to make a better/faster/cheaper test
2) You hire lawyers to take the clever person to court, and tie up their product in so much litigation it looks like the world's largest ball of twine.
3) You either end up buying out the clever person, litigate them into bankruptcy, or delay them until you've extended the patent and your extended patent expires.
4) You then make a minor change to
Re:Test for Money or No Test at All? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, the research surrounding statistical analysis of correlation between diseases and body diagnostics will surely skyrocket as people race to patent these things.
Speaking as someone who does this kind of research for a living, I can tell you that patentability is neither necessary nor desirable to spur research in the field.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, the research surrounding statistical analysis of correlation between diseases and body diagnostics will surely skyrocket as people race to patent these things.
Speaking as someone who does this kind of research for a living, I can tell you that patentability is neither necessary nor desirable to spur research in the field.
Well maybe you should talk to the venture capital funds and the people who give you researchers money to do research that might result in nothing. Or do you work for free?
We're all quiet about drug patents when a company does something really beneficial for humanity [slashdot.org] and patents it. No one got upset with Cleveland Biomedical Labs for patenting those radiation fixing proteins--you'll notice their investors enjoyed a temporary 30% increase in stock worth that has since diminished. But when it comes to
Re:Test for Money or No Test at All? (Score:4, Insightful)
I work in academia, of course. My salary comes from NIH grants. And that, my friend, is how the vast bulk of basic science research gets done.
You want applications of scientific knowledge? Industry is great at that. And when corporate researchers come up with a novel, useful, and non-obvious way to apply knowledge in a specific way to a specific problem, patents are a great way to keep such work going. Getting the knowledge in the first place ... not so much.
Look, I want people to make money off my work. If one of my papers ever gets mentioned in a good patent on a diagnostic or treatment that actually helps people, I'll be overjoyed. That's why I do what I do. Do I want a decent paycheck? Of course I do. But if the paycheck were all I cared about, believe me, there are easier ways to make a living. I walked away from a steady, secure, well-paid, and generally quite enjoyable DBA job to go back to grad school, and although I regret the loss of income, I don't regret the decision itself at all.
Science is a public good. Treating the fruits of science as property pretty much guarantees that science, as we mean the word in modern usage, does not happen. If we want the benefits of our ever-increasing knowledge of the natural world, we have to make that knowledge as widely usable as possible.
Parent
Re:Test for Money or No Test at All? (Score:5, Insightful)
will surely skyrocket
Most likely not beyond what it would have either way. Research is a cost with very unpredictable ROI, and total funds available to pay for medical payments don't necessarily increase much just because there are more patents (monopoly economics; you're always charging what the market can bear so there's never 'more' money available unless the consumers become wealthier). Instead they cannibalize each other, which means the pharmaceutical industry is better off not researching more than absolutely necessary (the classic 'twist a molecule one step to the left' and apply for a new patent) and fighting it out with marketing. Which is why you see more patent money funding marketing than funds research.
I'd rather have the ability to test myself for a disease for $X than to not be able to test for it no matter what the cost.
Ah, but you don't want to test yourself for _that_ disease. You want to get tested for _this_ disease. Your tanned doctor certainly recommends getting tested for _this_ disease, and he's been on a week long ski, er, 'conference' trip to the alps, so he certainly knows the kickbacks, er, symptoms... and no questions of why he's got lipstick smudges in the same tone that the pharmarep who just left wore.
In the end you may still not get that test you want; the classic argument for patents has very little evidence to indicate that it actually works as intended. There is, however, a lot of evidence that monopolies become very ineffective, and you don't need to go further than a pharmacorps investor relations material to note that most money derived from those patents goes to completely different things.
The pharmas like to claim it's expensive to do medical research. You don't need to look much to note that most everything monopolies do eventually becomes 'very expensive', so it's an open question whether patents needed because R&D is expensive or R&D is expensive because there are patents.
I'd be interested in hearing Prometheus Labs' pricing scheme.
Revenue, when you have a monopoly, is always maximized at what the market can bear. You jack up the prices until you lose money from the lost customers than you gain from the increased per customer profit. It's not as if someone could undercut you...
What motive do they have ... without a monetary incentive
What motive does anyone have in a free market economy? Either you improve your products or your competition will wipe the floor with you. Many industries live with exactly those conditions.
If being handed free money by the state (or monopoly rights, which isn't much different in anything but name) was a prerequisite for anyone having an incentive to do anything we might as well skip the pretence of a free market.
Parent
Beaten to the punch (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, their patent only covers when bulls do it.
Re:Beaten to the punch (Score:4, Interesting)
Prometheus is the Titan who was chained to a rock by Zeus so an eagle could eat his liver every day (it grew back every night).
Since the liver filters crap from the blood, clearly Prometheus has the patent on regenerative shit filtering, not on shit production.
As a side note, what's ironic to me is Prometheus has become a symbol of defiance to authority, largely due to Shelley's Prometheus Unbound [wikipedia.org]. (In the original mythology, Prometheus reconciles with Zeus and submits to Zeus's will -- Shelley rewrites the myth so that Prometheus's defiance leads to Zeus's downfall). So now we have a company using the name "Prometheus", but using the full powers of authority to prevent others from using potentially life-saving technology.
Way, way off-topic -- I know. But for this company to use the name "Prometheus" because of its association with knowledge/wisdom (Prometheus brought fire to humans, which is why Zeus punished him), but then contradict the modern association with defiance of authority... well, I find it humorous, anyway.
Parent
IP... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This wasn't the knowledge economy I was expecting.
That's because the so-called "knowledge economy" was complete bullshit from the get-go.
When the manufacturing base was destroyed in the late '60s and early '70s, a phony concept had to be invented by the government's court economists to keep the people from rebelling.
obesity as an indicator (Score:4, Funny)
I just read that while health care costs for everyone have been increasing, the jumps (and occurrences of illnesses) have been highest for obese people.
Clearly, using obesity as an indicator of potential health risk is a highly valuable technique deserving of patent protection. Anyone who notices that they are overweight and think of trying to become healthier through diet and exercise should be sued for infringement! We need legislation to combat weight loss piracy!!!
Chicken Little (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone loves to freak out about this, but the reality is that there is a safe harbor provision for doctors in the patent statute.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_287.htm [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The safe harbor does not apply to test manufacturers.
Re:Chicken Little (Score:5, Informative)
That's a loophole to the medical practice exception that you could drive an ambulance through.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. The phrase "biotechnology patent" seems extremely broad, and it is not defined in the statute. I can only assume that Congress did not intend for the "biotechnology patent" to subsume the entire safe harbor!
Re:Chicken Little (Score:4, Insightful)
Why assume that? Pharma/biotech companies give millions to electoral campaigns, and employ thousands in many voting districts. As far as I'm concerned, Congress intended to do something very similar to what you've suggested -- to remove the medical safe harbor for all but a few medical purposes.
Parent
Re:Chicken Little (Score:4, Insightful)
So there's an exception in patent law that protects doctors from infringing patents, unless they infringe a patent. Good god.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't this give Mayo an automatic win? Or is the clinic not a provider AKA only the people that work for the corporation are providers, or ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The district court's order granting summary judgment of invalidity doesn't discuss the safe harbor provision. So the answer to your question may be "because the defendant didn't raise it". The defendant has (so far successfully) argued that the patents are invalid under 35 USC 101 - lack of patent-eligible subject matter.
This case is headed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
Note that the Bilski case, recently decided by the CAFC, has been accepted by the US Supreme Court. That should
Re:Chicken Little (Score:5, Interesting)
So where does that leave me?
I'm the director of an analytical chemistry facility located at a university. We perform exactly the kinds of analysis described in the patents routinely (though not directly from blood, for various reasons). At the moment we're trying to set up a partnership with another (larger) university that has a medical school and hospital. Strangely enough, they don't have an analytical lab like the one I head, so we hope to work with them performing such analyses.
Will we be protected, as "outside contractors"? Will I need to search the patent literature every time someone submits a sample, or if I need to develop a new analysis protocol?
I briefly read through the patents, and they are absolutely disgusting. They look like scientific or medical review texts, without even a hint of new methods or protocols that could be (maybe, barely) defensible as patentable. This is an outright claim on knowledge itself.
Parent
Re:Chicken Little (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk to your university legal department immediately.
I'm serious. Okay, first, get together with your department chair and maybe your dean. Talk to your collaborators and their bosses at the other university, too. Make sure everyone understands what a major problem this is. Then sit down with the lawyers. If you can convince them that this is a serious threat to your institution, there's a good chance they'll sign on to the case. Is your work NIH-funded? Then they might get on board too.
Academic researchers -- you know, the people who actually create the knowledge which IP vultures try to scavenge -- need to start fighting back. It doesn't mean we should try to take up every case that offends us, however tempting that may be. It does mean that when we hear about a case that might directly affect our work, we should see if there's something we can do.
Parent
Patent vs. Natural Phenomena (Score:2, Insightful)
Having said that, Prometheus Labs are really the kinds of assholes that citizens in US society have been trained to fear: "Lawyer Mongering Freedom Trolls[TM]." If we do not stand up to the current leaders of our government (and their money hounds); we will find ourselves in a future where we become a product at conception, and thus will be subject to QA at the hands of [insert-favorite-greedy-oppressive-governme
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A clear indicator that our medical system needs reform is that corporations can engage in profit-maximizing behavior like this by treating sick people as a "resource" or "market."
Doctors, labs, chemists, and even insurers are entitled to a fair profit for their services provided. However, they are not entitled to behave like wall street tycoons and start "innovating" in ways to screw us, and each other.
Or at least they shouldn't be. The fact that they are is the root of the problem with health care in the
I know I may be a bit of a leftist on this but (Score:2, Interesting)
knowledge patented by them? (Score:2)
Is this covered by the constitution? I'm not sure, "writings and scientific discoveries". It seems to be contrary to what the founding fathers had in mind to be able to patent "knowlege". But then again, they never had twoo hundred year long copyrights in mind, either.
It's a damned good thing patents expire in twenty yeras, as opposed to copyright. It's funny, you spend millions on an invention, thousands more patenting it, and the patent expires in twenty years. Meanwhile some dufus spends twenty minutes w
Compound Issue (Score:2)
This has at least two potentially controversial issues.
The first is the USPTO "we'll patent anything, including arse-wiping techniques" attitude, already familiar to Slashdot. I don't need to elaborate on that. Not here, anyway.
The second is how much right to protection from competition does a corporation have when it comes to essential needs, such as clean water and basic healthcare? At what point does such protection interfere with patients' rights to basic needs?
In other words, if a monopoly on a test
Knowledge, or "Facts" should not be patentable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>such as TEST for a certain condition
That's exactly what Prometheus is patenting.
-b