1 / 15

BIOTECHNOLOGY/ FOOD AND DRUG Overcoming Barriers To Protection Of New Technologies AIPLA October 25, 2013 3:30-5:30 p.m.

BIOTECHNOLOGY/ FOOD AND DRUG Overcoming Barriers To Protection Of New Technologies AIPLA October 25, 2013 3:30-5:30 p.m. OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO PROTECTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES. MODERATORS. Moderators: Co-chairs Plant Biotechnology Subcommittee Bruce Vrana Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc .

truman
Download Presentation

BIOTECHNOLOGY/ FOOD AND DRUG Overcoming Barriers To Protection Of New Technologies AIPLA October 25, 2013 3:30-5:30 p.m.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BIOTECHNOLOGY/FOOD AND DRUGOvercoming Barriers ToProtection Of New TechnologiesAIPLA October 25, 20133:30-5:30 p.m.

  2. OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO PROTECTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

  3. MODERATORS Moderators: Co-chairs Plant Biotechnology Subcommittee Bruce Vrana Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. Alice O. Martin, Ph.D., J.D. Partner Barnes & Thornburg LLP CLE Credit: 2 hours

  4. Keynote Speaker (30 minutes) Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty Distinguished University Professor University of Illinois at ChicagoTopic: Patent Eligibility and Contentious Court Cases: Genetic Technology and Beyond Speakers/Panelists (60 minutes) Professor Jay P. Kesan University of Illinois, College of Law Topic: Administrative Agencies, Public Interest Groups and New Technologies Dr. Humphrey Foote Senior Associate AJ Park Topic: International IP Protection for Plants

  5. Speakers/Panelists: (con’td)Thomas E. Nickson, Ph.D.International Policy LeadMonsanto Law DepartmentTopic: Accessing Genetic Resources: The Building blocks of New TechnologiesChristine GouldHead of Next Generation EngagementSyngentaTopic: Industry Approaches to Public Policy and EducationPanel discuss followed by Q&A (30 minutes)

  6. Bugging Cancer Overcoming Barriers to Protection of New Technology 40 Years After Diamond v. Chakrabarty The 2020 Supreme Court Case: Gold v. Chakrabarty A.M. Chakrabarty pseudomo@uic.edu Cover Design By: ahohe2@uic.edu

  7. Two Key Features of the Biotechnology Development in the United States • The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 — a landmark technology transfer legislation. • The 1980 Supreme Court Decision on the patentability of Life Forms — Anything under the sun made by man can be patented in the United States. Congress shall have the power … to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes.U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8

  8. The Controversy over Patenting of Life Forms • The United States Supreme Court Decision in 1980: A split 5:4 Decision • Why such a split decision?

  9. Two patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 1. Bowman v. Monsanto: The US patent 5,352,605 on glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready soybean was found to be infringed by the US Supreme Court on May 13, 2013. The central question in this case was: is the patent right exhausted after the first sale of a patented product or does the patent remain valid for self-replicating entities such as a genetically-engineered seed that can produce the same progeny after many generations? Monsanto sued the Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman after he purchases the seeds, containing Roundup Ready seeds, from a grain elevator operator and planted the genetically-engineered weed-killer resistant seeds to grow soybean plants without paying royalty to Monsanto.

  10. Two patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 2. Association of Molecular Pathology v. US PTO/Myriad Genetics: The central question in this case is: are human genes and mutations patentable? • Myriad Genetics in Salt Lake City, Utah, had seven patents covering the genetic screening of breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. A judge in the District Court in Manhattan revoked these patents in March 2010 in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of clinicians, patents and advocacy groups. This decision was reversed by the CAFC in July 2011, affirming patenting of human genes, but not mutations such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. • On June 13, 2013, in an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that isolated and purified BRCA 1 and BRCA2 genes are naturally occurring DNA segment, without any modifications and are not patent eligible. C-DNAs are, however, patent eligible.

  11. 6 h 45 min 6 h 45 min J774 MCF-7 Peritoneal macrophages MCF- 10F Mast cells Azurin as an anticancer agent

  12. Azurin in the prevention of precancerous lesions

  13. p28 Phase I Clinical Trials in Stage IV Cancer Patients (metastatic, refractory solid tumors)

  14. Prevention of cancer onset by azurin/P28 Wild Type Wild Type K-ras with P53- Inhalation therapy with P28/azurin Lentiviral vector Mouse with tumor Mouse without tumor Lung Adenoma Grade 1, 2 and 3, Histological Analysis

  15. P28/azurin expression K-ras lentiviral vector ? If successful in mice, what about humans? Can azurin expression from the human genome protect humans from cancer (and HIV/AIDS)? Can the process of cancer prevention through expression of a bacterial gene from the human genome be a patentable process, complicating the 13th amendment?

More Related