Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Keller, Jacob]

>>Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention
a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention,
and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get
rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially.

I agree with this especially because someone else is, after all, going to 
commercialize it and charge money for it.







Best, BR

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Abhishek 
Anan
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

I second Gert's thoughts
Best,
Abhishek

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend 
<gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl<mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>> wrote:
A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand 
binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent 
such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings?

I would say that the best one can do with important novel 
data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit 
from it.

Gert

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Bernhard Rupp]

One unintended consequence of an increasingly translational research focused
agenda is 

that science is steadily drifting towards milestone-oriented contract
research. We are almost there

already, with practically every grant gendered and mile-stoned with
trumped-up relevance to the greater 

good of society. Curiosity driven or high-risk science for the sake of new
insights beyond

the directly applicable is becoming exceedingly hard to fund.

 

There is not much difference anymore between a CRO contract and a grant
(except nobody 

really takes the academic milestone table seriously) and non-delivery by
academia

rarely has consequences. That might change with hardened translationalist
influence,

so let's be careful what we wish for..

 

Best,  BR 

 

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Pietro
Roversi
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:34 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

 

Dear all,

one of the most interesting documents in recent times on the matter of
translational research and IP comes from the Wellcome Trust:

https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/transforming-uk-translation-20170
725.pdf

In particular, under committments 4-8, they spell out - although implicitly
- the push for a change in which IP is handled in Universities.

Let's see which way it goes but I remain hopeful

with best wishes

Pietro 

 

 

=

Dr. Pietro Roversi

 

As of July 2018 I shall take up a two-year

LISCB and Leicester-Wellcome Trust ISSF Fellowship

at Leicester University: http://www2.le.ac.uk/institutes/liscb

 

Until June 2018: Oxford Glycobiology Institute

Department of Biochemistry

University of Oxford

South Parks Road 
Oxford OX1 3QU England - UK
Tel. 0044 1865 275339

 

 

  _  

From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Alun R Coker
[alun.co...@ucl.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 November 2017 20:35
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to the
university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law which says
that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So giving up IPR
can be problematical and could leave an academic in breach of contract 
though I don't suppose that most universities would pursue this. Recently,
at UCL we were presented with new IPR policy which says that all patentable
IP created during the course of our duties is owned the university. We are
challenging this through our academic board (senate) and have managed to get
a Academic Board members to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be
interesting to hear what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I
have heard that in Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get
their IPR policy rewritten by invoking the 1926 Slavery Convention,  which
states that slavery is defined as "the status or condition of a person over
whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are
exercised". Their augment was that by seeking ownership over an academic's
intellectual property was tantamount to seeking ownership over the academic.

All the best,

Alun

 

On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote:

 

There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives

 

including prizes as an alternative to patents

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_area
s_for_prize_models_over_patents

 

 

 

On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp <hofkristall...@gmail.com
<mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com> > wrote:



> to publish it so the world can benefit from it.

Isn't that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention

a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the
invention,

and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get

rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone

(in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having

an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit.) seems

a reasonable proposition..

 

Best, BR

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> ] On Behalf Of Abhishek Anan
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

 

I second Gert's thoughts

Best,

Abhishek

 

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend <gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl
<mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl> > wrote:

A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand
binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent
such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings?

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Pietro Roversi]

Dear all,

one of the most interesting documents in recent times on the matter of 
translational research and IP comes from the Wellcome Trust:

https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/transforming-uk-translation-20170725.pdf

In particular, under committments 4-8, they spell out - although implicitly - 
the push for a change in which IP is handled in Universities.

Let's see which way it goes but I remain hopeful

with best wishes

Pietro


=
Dr. Pietro Roversi

As of July 2018 I shall take up a two-year
LISCB and Leicester-Wellcome Trust ISSF Fellowship
at Leicester University: http://www2.le.ac.uk/institutes/liscb

Until June 2018: Oxford Glycobiology Institute
Department of Biochemistry
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QU England - UK
Tel. 0044 1865 275339



From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Alun R Coker 
[alun.co...@ucl.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 November 2017 20:35
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents


In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to the 
university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law which says 
that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So giving up IPR can 
be problematical and could leave an academic in breach of contract  though 
I don't suppose that most universities would pursue this. Recently, at UCL we 
were presented with new IPR policy which says that all patentable IP created 
during the course of our duties is owned the university. We are challenging 
this through our academic board (senate) and have managed to get a Academic 
Board members to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be interesting to 
hear what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I have heard that in 
Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get their IPR policy 
rewritten by invoking the 1926 Slavery Convention,  which states that slavery 
is defined as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the 
powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". Their augment was 
that by seeking ownership over an academic's intellectual property was 
tantamount to seeking ownership over the academic.

All the best,

Alun

On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote:

There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives

including prizes as an alternative to patents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_areas_for_prize_models_over_patents



On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp 
<hofkristall...@gmail.com<mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> to publish it so the world can benefit from it.

Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention
a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention,
and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get
rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone
(in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having
an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems
a reasonable proposition….

Best, BR

From: CCP4 bulletin board 
[mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>] On Behalf Of 
Abhishek Anan
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

I second Gert's thoughts
Best,
Abhishek

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend 
<gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl<mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>> wrote:
A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand 
binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent 
such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings?

I would say that the best one can do with important novel 
data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit 
from it.

Gert




--
 patr...@douglas.co.uk<mailto:patr...@douglas.co.uk>Douglas Instruments Ltd.
 Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK
 Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart

 http://www.douglas.co.uk
 Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090US toll-free 1-877-225-2034
 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36


--
Dr Alun R. Coker
Senior Lecturer
Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research
University College London
The Cruciform Building
London
WC1E 6BT

Tel: 020 7679 6703 Ext 46703
Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed>

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Alun R Coker]

In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to 
the university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law 
which says that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So 
giving up IPR can be problematical and could leave an academic in breach 
of contract  though I don't suppose that most universities would 
pursue this. Recently, at UCL we were presented with new IPR policy 
which says that /all/ /patentable IP created during the course of our 
duties/ is owned the university. We are challenging this through our 
academic board (senate) and have managed to get a Academic Board members 
to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be interesting to hear 
what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I have heard that 
in Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get their IPR 
policy rewritten by invoking the /1926 Slavery Convention, /which states 
that slavery is defined as "/the status or condition of a person over 
whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are 
exercised/". Their augment was that by seeking ownership over an 
academic's intellectual property was tantamount to seeking ownership 
over the academic.


All the best,

Alun


On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote:


There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives


including prizes as an alternative to patents


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_areas_for_prize_models_over_patents



On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp <hofkristall...@gmail.com 
<mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com>> wrote:


> to publish it so the world can benefit from it.

Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the
invention

a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the
invention,

and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get

rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone

(in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all,
and having

an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems

a reasonable proposition….

Best, BR

*From:* CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>] *On Behalf Of *Abhishek Anan
*Sent:* Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
    *Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

I second Gert's thoughts

Best,

Abhishek

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend
<gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl <mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>>
wrote:

A related question. If you have a crystal structure and
found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to
regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding
site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings?


I would say that the best one can do with important novel
data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the
world can benefit from it.

Gert




--
patr...@douglas.co.uk <mailto:patr...@douglas.co.uk> Douglas 
Instruments Ltd.

 Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK
 Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart

http://www.douglas.co.uk
 Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090    US toll-free 1-877-225-2034
 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36


--
Dr Alun R. Coker
Senior Lecturer
Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research
University College London
The Cruciform Building
London
WC1E 6BT

Tel: 020 7679 6703 Ext 46703
Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Patrick Shaw Stewart]

There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives


including prizes as an alternative to patents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_areas_for_prize_models_over_patents



On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp <hofkristall...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > to publish it so the world can benefit from it.
>
> Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention
>
> a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the
> invention,
>
> and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get
>
> rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone
>
> (in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and
> having
>
> an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems
>
> a reasonable proposition….
>
>
>
> Best, BR
>
>
>
> *From:* CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of 
> *Abhishek
> Anan
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31
> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> *Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
>
>
>
> I second Gert's thoughts
>
> Best,
>
> Abhishek
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend <gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>
> wrote:
>
> A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel
> ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could
> you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such
> findings?
>
>
> I would say that the best one can do with important novel
> data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can
> benefit from it.
>
> Gert
>
>
>



-- 
 patr...@douglas.co.ukDouglas Instruments Ltd.
 Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK
 Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart

 http://www.douglas.co.uk
 Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090US toll-free 1-877-225-2034
 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Bernhard Rupp]

> to publish it so the world can benefit from it.



Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention

a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention,

and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get

rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone

(in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having

an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems

a reasonable proposition….

 

Best, BR

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Abhishek 
Anan
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

 

I second Gert's thoughts

Best,

Abhishek

 

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend <gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl 
<mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl> > wrote:

A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand 
binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent 
such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings?


I would say that the best one can do with important novel 
data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit 
from it.

Gert

 

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Abhishek Anan]

I second Gert's thoughts

Best,
Abhishek

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend 
wrote:

> A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel
>> ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could
>> you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such
>> findings?
>>
>
> I would say that the best one can do with important novel
> data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can
> benefit from it.
>
> Gert
>

[ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Gert Vriend]

A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel 
ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, 
could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use 
of such findings?


I would say that the best one can do with important novel 
data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can 
benefit from it.


Gert

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Francisco Tenjo]

You cannot patent the “binding site” because it is found in nature (you did
not invent it, you discovered it and patents are only granted for
inventions). I think you could patent compounds that bind that site if they
are not the exact natural ligands.

- Francisco

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:14 PM Cheng Zhang  wrote:

>
> A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel
> ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could
> you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such
> findings?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheng
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:33 AM, James Phillips <
> phillipsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Realistically, if you live in the US and 5 SCOTUS judges agree you can
>> patent anything.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 09:45 Francisco Tenjo  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are
>>> not present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the
>>> case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you
>>> make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have
>>> been published before you file your patent application.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> - Francisco
>>>
>>> 2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris :
>>>
 > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or
 protein molecule be patented.

 Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a
 molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small
 molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins.
 There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too.

 regards,
 Chris
 
 Chris Morris
 chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk
 Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689  Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634
 Mobile: 07921-717915
 Skype: chrishgmorris
 http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris
 STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane,
 Daresbury, Warrington, WA4 4AD UK

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Francisco Tenjo
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -
> Cheng Zhang
>
-- 
Francisco Tenjo

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Cheng Zhang]

A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel
ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could
you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such
findings?

Thanks!

Cheng

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:33 AM, James Phillips 
wrote:

> Realistically, if you live in the US and 5 SCOTUS judges agree you can
> patent anything.
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 09:45 Francisco Tenjo  wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are
>> not present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the
>> case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you
>> make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have
>> been published before you file your patent application.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> - Francisco
>>
>> 2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris :
>>
>>> > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein
>>> molecule be patented.
>>>
>>> Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a
>>> molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small
>>> molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins.
>>> There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Chris
>>> 
>>> Chris Morris
>>> chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk
>>> Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689  Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634
>>> Mobile: 07921-717915
>>> Skype: chrishgmorris
>>> http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris
>>> STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane,
>>> Daresbury, Warrington, WA4 4AD UK
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Francisco Tenjo
>>
>


-- 
-
Cheng Zhang

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[James Phillips]

Realistically, if you live in the US and 5 SCOTUS judges agree you can
patent anything.

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 09:45 Francisco Tenjo  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are not
> present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the
> case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you
> make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have
> been published before you file your patent application.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Francisco
>
> 2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris :
>
>> > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein
>> molecule be patented.
>>
>> Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a
>> molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small
>> molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins.
>> There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too.
>>
>> regards,
>> Chris
>> 
>> Chris Morris
>> chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk
>> Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689  Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634
>> Mobile: 07921-717915
>> Skype: chrishgmorris
>> http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris
>> STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury,
>> Warrington, WA4 4AD UK
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Francisco Tenjo
>

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Francisco Tenjo]

Hi.

A mutated DNA or protein molecule can be patented if the mutations are not
present in nature and they have a technical effect (for example, in the
case of antibodies, you could have increased affinity for an antigen if you
make the right mutations of the CDRs). Also, the mutations should not have
been published before you file your patent application.

Regards,

- Francisco

2017-11-03 6:26 GMT-04:00 Chris Morris :

> > Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein
> molecule be patented.
>
> Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a
> molecule for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small
> molecule drugs, and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins.
> There are patents for industrial use of enzymes too.
>
> regards,
> Chris
> 
> Chris Morris
> chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689  Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634
> Mobile: 07921-717915
> Skype: chrishgmorris
> http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris
> STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury,
> Warrington, WA4 4AD UK
>



-- 
Francisco Tenjo

Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[Chris Morris]

> Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein 
> molecule be patented.

Yes and no. A molecule as such cannot be patented. But the use of a molecule 
for a specific purpose can be. There are many patents for small molecule drugs, 
and also for engineered antibodies, which are proteins. There are patents for 
industrial use of enzymes too. 

regards,
Chris

Chris Morris
chris.mor...@stfc.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689  Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634
Mobile: 07921-717915
Skype: chrishgmorris
http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris
STFC, Daresbury Laboratory, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury, 
Warrington, WA4 4AD UK

[ccp4bb] Regarding Patents

[raj kumar]

Sorry for asking out of context question. Can a mutated DNA or protein
molecule be patented.
Thanks
Raj