Diagnostic Kits/Paper

Are patents clogging the pipeline: The effects of intellectual property on commercialization and access to genetic diagnostics
(A Summary Paper of our Research to date)
By Carolina Rossini, Andrew Clearwater, and Mackenzie Cowell

Last Draft: December 3, 2009

Introduction

Description of the GDx Market

Defining Genetic Diagnostics

from Educational_Materials#Field_Definition

Brief History of GDx and Related Technology

• chemical patents at turn of century (see Palombi's work)

• History of the market (Diagnostic Test Service Commercialization in Multiplex and Esoteric Testing)
  • A trend towards consolidation (all discussed on page 25)
    • "[T]he 1980s and 1990s saw the establishment of some 7000 independent reference labs." page 25
    • "In 2008, there are approximately 3000 small reference labs in the U.S." page 25
    • 1995 Labcorp of America: was formed by the merger of National Health Laboratories and Roche Biomedical Laboratories page 25
    • 1996 3 main players in the market: Labcorp of America, Corning, and SmithKline Beecham (Beckman) page 25
      • 1997 Corning created Quest Diagnostics as an entity to hold their laboratories page 25
      • 1999 Quest Diagnositics purchased the laboratories of SmithKline Beecham page 25
    • Since 1999, LabCorp and Quest have been the two largest independent labs in the U.S.

Overview of IP Landscape

Understanding the intellectual property landscape requires discussion about a of a wide variety of protections including: patents, trade secrets, nondisclosure agreements, non-compete agreements, non-solicitation agreements, confidentiality agreements.

Sources: Overview & Economics of IP & IP

Forces affecting the GDx Industry

Intellectual Property

Patenting Trends

• 'Patents

The market for genetic diagnostic kits shows a trend towards consolidation (Diagnostic Test Service Commercialization in Multiplex and Esoteric Testing) At the same time, there has been "an increase in patents on the inputs to drug discovery (“research tools”)." (Cohen et. al., 2003) Despite this increase in patents in patent activity, no substantial patent barriers have been found as a result of this increase in patents on the inputs to drug discovery (Cohen et. al., 2003). There has been incongruity between the concern expressed about patents and empirical evidence from recent studies. In fact, The perception of rising patent litigation rates in the area of DNA-based patents is most likely false (Mills, A.E. & Tereskerz, P., 2008) Concern over patents may also be premature. Esther van Zimmeren et al. found conflicting information about the existence of a patent thicket. (Esther van Zimmeren et al. 2006) The Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation (US National Research Council of the National Academies) concluded there is "no substantial evidence for the existence of a patent thicket or a patent-blocking problem in genetics." [1] On the other hand, patent holders of gene based diagnostics are more active in asserting their patents which gives some support for the conclusion that diagnostic kit research is currently being inhibited. (Esther van Zimmeren et al. 2006)

• Justifiable scope of protection for gene patents
  • This topic is rarely discussed in the literature (Verbeure, et al., 2005) but the implications of broad or narrow claim recognition are important to our research.

move this?

• Bayh-Dole

The Bayh-Dole Act may not be serving its purpose in the genetic testing context. If genetic research is inhibited by current patenting behaviors then the fact that at least one study found “[t]he majority of the patent holders enforcing their patents were universities or research institutes, and more than half of their patents resulted from government-sponsored research” means that the act holds a central role in creating a barrier to access (Cho et al. 2003). While Cohen et. al. found substantially no patent barriers to university research there was "some evidence of delays associated with negotiating access to patented research tools, and there are areas in which patents over targets limit access and where access to foundational discoveries can be restricted. There are also cases in which research is redirected to areas with more intellectual property (IP) freedom. Still, the vast majority of respondents say that there are no cases in which valuable research projects were stopped because of IP problems relating to research inputs." (Cohen et. al., 2003)

Proposed Alternative Protection Schemes

• Patent Pools
• Patent Clearing Houses

Licensing

• Licensing Approaches

Van Overwalle defines four licensing approaches (Geertrui Van Overwalle et al., 2005) First, access to the genetic sequences is free but commercial test kits require a royalty. Second, the license for the commercial test kit to labs is set at a price that makes access to the genetic sequences more expensive. Third, an exclusive license is given to laboratories in a way that limits access. Lastly, there are open licenses which allow improvements to the patent to be shared as a way to facilitating cooperative invention (ie. Biological Innovation for Open Society). Given these options presented by Van Overwalle, there were several trends in licensing behavior that are important to the development of genetic diagnostic tests. The likelihood of granting a license for patented DNA sequences was found to be similar for firms and nonprofits but nonprofits were far more likely to grant exclusive licenses. This use of exclusive licensing demands further study to find out if the use of these licenses is justified or merely a default practice with little substantive justification. (Henry, M. et al. 2002) Next, it is important to consider that changes in patent ownership and licensing complexities can have measurable effect on the development and performance of genetic testing. (Merz, J.F. et al., 2002) A industry trend towards greater complexity has not been shown but Merz demonstrates a case where the transaction costs due to changes in patent ownership and licensing reduced innovation and research for that area of genetic diagnostic tests.

• Licensing Behavior

Licensing behavior varies by entity. The study conducted by Henry et. al found that for profit and non-profit entities approach patent and licenses differently. (Henry, M.R. et. al., 2003) Patenting behavior of for-profit entities showed a tendency towards filling patent applications for all new technologies and then deciding what to pursue based on commercial interest. Non-profit entities, on the other hand, were more selective about when to apply for a patent. Licensing behavior was found to be fairly uniform with both types of entities, licensing was most often used as a method of commercialization with licensing for research was very infrequently. Despite these similarities, nonprofits were more than twice as likely to license exclusively as compared to for-profit companies (Henry, M.R. et. al., 2003).

• Compulsory Licensing

Existing and Evolving GDx Models

Commercialization of Basic Research

• Licensing of research to existing GDx company
• Licensing of research to new GDx start-up
• Usage of research in public domain by existing GDx company? (multiplex kits?)

Paths to Market

• ASRs
• Kits
• DTC