BioScience Biz

Europe says no to stem cell patents

The UK's Guardian reports that "the European Patent Office has refused a patent covering the use of human embryonic stem cells on the grounds that it would be contrary to 'public order or morality.'" Referring to it as a "landmark ruling," the article goes on to say that if the patent had been granted, observers feared it would thwart companies engaged in developing hESC-based technologies. Robin Lovell-Badge, head of stem cell biology at the National Institute for Medical Research, is paraphrased in the article as saying that "the ruling would make it easier for biotech companies to operate in the EU compared with the US, where similar patents on the use of human embryonic stem cells have been granted."

For the inventor--mind your intellectual property

To disclose your idea or not to disclose it can be a critical question. The currency of success in science, especially academic science, is the almighty publication--invited talks also are highly valued.  The more we do of both, the more respect we generate among our colleagues and promotion committees. But, a scientist with an idea that might have commercial value needs to weigh the benefits against the risks of disclosing that idea, especially in published form. There can be a right and wrong time to do this.

A recent article in bioentrepreneur discusses the pros and cons of publishing as it relates to intellectual property. The insightful article talks about the use of “defensive” publication as a way to solidify patent claims. But the article also talks about the timing of disclosing a marketable idea and a researcher would be wise to consider these points.

“In the United States, when an inventor publishes his or her invention, a one-year grace period ensures that the inventor's patent rights are not immediately extinguished. Publication immediately extinguishes most non-US patent rights, however, even those of the inventor. A decision to publish is thus a decision to irreversibly surrender potential patent rights. Such an important decision should only be made in the context of a comprehensive IP strategy.”