Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Intellectual Property”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

[Patentability of living material: public health concerns (1/2)].

A TOPICAL SUBJECT: The patentability of living material provokes debate in the scientific and medical world, but also concerns the political and legal circles. REGARDING PATENTS: Laws govern intellectual property rights and patients. There are contradictory arguments advanced by those who are in favour or who are opposed to patents, and particular problems related to the patenting of living organisms, particularly since the progress made in genomic research. ESSENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH REQUIREMENTS: It is important to underline the limits imposed by the protection of intellectual property, regarding the access by all to any progress issued from research. The provisions must be widened in order to bypass the patents, when the health and nutrition of populations are at stake. It is essential to come to the universal accessibility, particularly in developing countries, to all innovations and that all knowledge be shared.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A novel technique for transforming the theft of mortal human cells into praiseworthy federal policy.

A revolution has occurred in the attitude of biologists toward their intellectual property rights. What today is patentable and highly profitable was, 20 years ago, unpatentable and given away for nothing. The history of this revolution began in the early 1960s when we made the first effort to have self-duplicating cell strains patented. The application was denied because patent law at that time did not include living matter. Because of the demand for our normal human diploid cell strain, WI-38, by NIH grantees, NIH support was provided to distribute WI-38 gratis to hundreds of recipients. These included vaccine and cell manufacturers who profited enormously from the direct sale of WI-38 or its use as a substrate for many human virus vaccines. When federal support for the distribution of WI-38 ended, but demand did not, I continued to distribute it for costs similar to those made by the American Type Culture Collection. When I took the first initiative and asked NIH to have the then unique question of title to a self-duplicating system resolved, they sent an accountant who accused me of theft of government property. I replied with a lawsuit that, after six years of litigation, we won with an out-of-court settlement. During these six years the United States Supreme Court ruled that living matter could be patented. Also, the biotechnology industry was launched by biologists who, like me, started companies using cells or microorganisms developed with federal support. This use of intellectual property rights by the nascent biotechnology industry was ultimately embraced by the entire biological community and by a directive from the President of the United States. This revolution has now evolved to the point where government biologists themselves may profit from research in federal laboratories, and the NIH itself aggressively seeks private commercial alliances. Universities have also pursued similar alliances to the extent that today the distinction between a research university and a commercial organization is only in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service.

Biotechnology↗
PubMed2005

Principles and process in the development of the Mayo Clinic's individual and institutional conflict of interest policy.

In 1995, federal regulations required all academic medical centers to implement policies to manage individual financial conflict of interest. At the Mayo Clinic, all staff are salaried, and all medically related intellectual property from the staff belongs to the clinic. Hence, it was necessary to develop a policy for institutional conflict of interest to complement the policy for individual conflicts of interest. This article addresses the principles and process that led to the development of the Mayo Clinic's policies that guide the management of conflict of interest of individuals and of the institution. Empowered by the Bayh-Dole Act, the Mayo Clinic participates in technology transfer through its entity Mayo Medical Ventures. Individual conflicts of interest arising from such technology transfer are associated with Institutional conflicts because all individual intellectual property belongs to the institution, per clinic policy. This policy addresses conflicts of interest that arise in research, leadership, clinical practice, investments, and purchasing. Associated with the statutory annual disclosure on personal consulting and other relationships with Industry, which are guided by federal regulations, all research protocols or grant applications require financial disclosure on initial submission and in annual progress reports. The clinic's Conflict of Interest Review Board was established to review each disclosure and recommend management of individual and institutional conflicts of interest according to policy.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Patent research as a way to ensure competitiveness of an object of economic activities].

Importance is shown of patent-associated studies at every stage of the life cycle of an object of economic activities. It is argued that a low level of patent-associated studies, failure to meet the deadline set for the completion thereof are responsible for an inadequate level of research activities, waste of time and resource, creation of worthless objects of intellectual property. Special stress is laid on the importance of implicit fulfillment of requirements of the state standards now in force in the sphere of intellectual property.

Economic Competition↗
PubMed2004

Gadoxate disodium: gadolinium EOB DTPA, gadoxetic acid, Gd-EOB-DTPA.

Gadoxate disodium [gadolinium EOB DTPA, Gd-EOB-DTPA, gadoxetic acid, Eovist injection, Primovist] is a hydrophilic paramagnetic contrast agent being developed by Schering AG for hepatobiliary magnetic resonance imaging. In April 2004, gadoxate disodium (Primovist) was approved in Sweden, the reference member state for the EU registration. Following the Swedish approval, Schering will initiate a mutual recognition procedure for the EU with approvals expected in most countries during 2004. Gadoxate disodium is in phase III clinical trials in the US and has completed phase III studies in Japan. Submissions for approval in Japan and other Asian countries are planned for 2004. Schering AG plans to launch Eovist in Japan in 2005. Schering AG acquired a worldwide, royalty-bearing licence to EPIX Medical's patents covering liver-enhancing agents such as Eovist injection. These included a European patent (222886) and the US patents (4,899,755 and 4,888,008) that EPIX Medical exclusively licensed from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). The MGH patents, a part of EPIX's extensive intellectual property, also covered albumin-targeted agents such as MS 325 (AngioMARK). Schering AG formally withdrew from the opposition proceedings against EPIX's EU patent 222886 following its acquisition of EPIX's intellectual property. These EU and US patents were also non-exclusively licensed by EPIX Medical to Bracco in September 2001. Apart from covering Eovist (Schering AG), the EU patent also covered gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance Bracco). Following the licensing agreement, Bracco withdrew its opposition to the patents in Europe and Japan, and both EPIX Medical and Bracco settled their European patent dispute. In its 2002 Annual Report, Schering predicted that Eovist has the potential to reach peak sales of euro50 million, three years after launch--at the time, launch in Europe was anticipated in 2004, followed by launch in Japan in 2005. This is down from earlier predictions, made at an analyst presentation in Berlin in March 2002, when the company forecast the product to reach peak sales of euro100 million.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Vincristine liposomal--INEX: lipid-encapsulated vincristine, onco TCS, transmembrane carrier system--vincristine, vincacine, vincristine sulfate liposomes for injection, VSLI.

INEX Pharmaceuticals is developing a liposomal formulation of vincristine [Onco TCS, vincacine, VSLI, Vincristine sulfate liposomes for injection] for the treatment of relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and other cancers. It is being developed using INEX's proprietary drug-delivery technology platform called the transmembrane carrier systems (TCS), which enables the targeted intracellular delivery of various therapeutic agents. Liposomal vincristine is expected to have certain advantages over the existing standard preparation of vincristine because the use of TCS technology enables the vincristine to circulate in the blood for longer, accumulate in the tumour, and be released over an extended period of time at the tumour site. The application of TCS technology to any agent, including vincristine, has the potential to increase the efficacy and decrease the side effects of the agent. INEX decided in 1998 to focus on gaining approval for liposomal vincristine in the treatment of relapsed aggressive NHL because no standard therapy was approved for this indication. In 1999, liposomal vincristine was granted accelerated development status by the US FDA, which enables the FDA to approve it based on the surrogate endpoint of a single clinical trial. In addition, the FDA granted liposomal vincristine fast track status in August 2000. In April 2001, INEX and Elan Corporation formed a joint venture for the development and commercialisation of liposomal vincristine, with both companies contributing assets to the venture including worldwide rights to the product and intellectual property rights. The joint venture was called IE Oncology. However, in June 2002, Elan announced that it was going to focus its business strategy on three specific areas, which would not include cancer therapies. INEX announced it had regained 100% ownership of liposomal vincristine in April 2003, by reacquiring the 19.9% equity interest held by Elan and in addition retaining a fully paid-up licence to Elan's intellectual property pertaining to liposomal vincristine. All obligations to Elan under the agreement will be met through three milestone payments totalling $8 million. Some of the milestones may be paid in shares valued at the then current market price. In January 2004, INEX and Enzon Pharmaceuticals formed a strategic partnership to develop and commercialise liposomal vincristine. Under the terms of the agreement, Enzon receives the exclusive North American commercialisation rights for liposomal vincristine for all indications. INEX will receive upfront and milestone payments as well as a percentage of commercial sales. Additionally, the formation of this partnership triggered a US$3 million payment from INEX to the former joint venture partner, Elan Corporation. Nine clinical trials of liposomal vincristine are currently being conducted, including one phase I/II trial and eight phase II trials. A phase II/III trial was completed in December 2002. In September 2003, Inex commenced a 'rolling submission' for liposomal vincristine by submitting the first of three major sections of the NDA to the FDA. The second major section was submitted to the FDA in December 2003. INEX expects to complete the filing with the submission of the clinical section of the NDA in the first quarter of 2004. Dow Jones Newswires reported on 1 October 2001 that the CEO of INEX expects Onco TCS to achieve sales of between $US100 and $US400 million annually for the company. FDA approval was then predicted for late 2002 or early 2003.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2004

The UIC ICBG (University of Illinois at Chicago International Cooperative Biodiversity Group) Memorandum of Agreement: a model of benefit-sharing arrangement in natural products drug discovery and development.

The Convention on Biodiversity mandates a new approach to the discovery of natural product drugs, one that incorporates concepts of national ownership of genetic resources, intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge, and sharing of economic benefits with countries that are the source of new natural products. The International Cooperative Biodiversity Group (ICBG) program was established to support experimentation in implementation of the Convention through development and execution of international agreements for bioprospecting. The agreement of one such ICBG program, between the University of Illinois at Chicago and institutions in Vietnam and Laos, is presented here. The core elements contained in the single, five-way Memorandum of Agreement are the arrangements for intellectual property rights, treatment of informed consent, and plans for benefit-sharing (including the sharing of short- and long-term royalty benefits, capacity building, and community reciprocity). Program participants were able to develop a practical and flexible agreement that satisfies the wishes of all institutions that are parties to it.

Africa↗
PubMed2003

Patenting nonassociated polymeric structures (NAPS): implications for structural genomic data release.

The intellectual property laws that govern patent rights should provide a reasonable balance between the competing concerns of open access and exclusivity. Open access can facilitate knowledge dissemination and collaboration in furthering science. On the other hand, exclusivity can ensure interest and financial investment in scientific research and development. In recent days, the appropriate balance between open access and exclusivity has been a focus of public debate, particularly with regard to genomic inventions and their applications. In seeking to reconcile the timing of structural genomic data release with certain efforts to secure intellectual property rights, the International Structural Genomics Organisation joins others confronting this controversy. This paper seeks to inform the discussion with an overview of the U.S. standards for patenting nonassociated polymeric structures (NAPS), which include polynucleotides or polypeptides of unknown biological significance, and their corresponding structural data. In the United States, the present ability to obtain patent rights to these discoveries appears problematic given the requirement of specific, substantial and credible utility, among other things. Without demonstrable utility, NAPS and NAPS-related data likely will not be entitled to patent protection, whether the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office rejects NAPS claims as unpatentable in the first instance, or the U.S. federal courts invalidate NAPS claims in later patent litigation. As such, the improbability of obtaining enforceable patent rights to NAPS might undermine the rationale for delaying structural genomic data release to allow for the filing of patent applications in this regard.

Expressed Sequence Tags↗
PubMed2004

Development and integration of molecular genetic tests into clinical practice: the US experience.

The issues that arise in the development of genetic tests for prediction and diagnosis are described in the context of the authors' experience as laboratory directors in the USA. The goal is to identify gaps and weaknesses in the test validation process and to define the pivotal issues. Variables that influence a laboratory director's decision to develop a particular molecular genetic assay, including motivation, economics, intellectual property and the regulatory environment, are described. Issues of clinical and analytic validation are discussed, providing examples of tests with both good (cystic fibrosis carrier screening) and poor (apolipoprotein E genotyping for Alzheimer's disease) clinical utility. The decision-making process that occurs during the considered transition of a research-based molecular genetic assay into routine use in the clinical laboratory is summarized. Different factors will be weighted differently depending on the nature of the disease being tested, the complexity of its gene and mutations, the available technical platforms, potential regulatory and intellectual property restrictions, and whether the proposed test is to be offered by an academic or a commercial laboratory.

Alzheimer Disease↗
PubMed2004

Oxipurinol: alloxanthine, Oxyprim, oxypurinol.

Oxipurinol [alloxanthine, Oxyprim, oxypurinol] is the active metabolite of the only commercially available xanthine oxidase inhibitor, allopurinol. Oxipurinol is also a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. Oxipurinol is currently being developed by Cardiome Pharma. It is waiting for approval in the US for the treatment of allopurinol-intolerant hyperuricaemia (gout) and is in phase III trials for the treatment of congestive heart failure. Allopurinol is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic hyperuricaemia, or gout. Approximately 3-5% of patients receiving allopurinol develop intolerance to the drug. Oxipurinol was originally developed by Burroughs Wellcome (later GlaxoSmithKline), and has been available on a compassionate-use basis since 1967 for use in allopurinol-intolerant patients. The licensee company ILEX Oncology has stated that oxipurinol does not have patent protection. Oxipurinol's potential for treatment of congestive heart failure is based on the possibility that xanthine oxidase inhibitors may improve myocardial work efficiency by sensitising cardiac muscle cells to calcium ions, which are a key determinant of cardiac muscle function. This results in more efficient contraction of cardiac muscle cells, without the same increase in oxygen demand. At the second annual BioPartnering North America conference (BPN-2004) [February 2004, Vancouver, Canada], Cardiome Pharma stated that it was seeking a commercialisation partner to market and distribute oxipurinol in the US for the treatment of allopurinol-intolerant hyperuricaemia. In 1995, ILEX Oncology obtained an exclusive licence to oxipurinol from Burroughs Wellcome. Burroughs Wellcome later became part of Glaxo Wellcome, which merged with SmithKline Beecham in December 2000 to form GlaxoSmithKline. ILEX's licence agreement is now with GlaxoSmithKline and The Wellcome Foundation. In December 2001, ILEX granted Paralex, a privately held New York-based company, an exclusive sublicence to all of ILEX's rights to oxipurinol for the treatment of hyperuricaemia in allopurinol-intolerant patients. Paralex additionally gained the right to develop and commercialise oxipurinol in all fields, under data and technology owned by ILEX. Furthermore, Paralex had licensed certain intellectual property rights from The John Hopkins University relating to cardiovascular applications of xanthine oxidase inhibitors. Paralex was acquired by Cardiome Pharma in March 2002. Cardiome Pharma announced early in May 2002 that it had exercised its option to acquire from ILEX Oncology Inc. rights to clinical trial data for oxypurinol for the treatment of gout in allopurinol-intolerant patients. ILEX completed its open-label phase II clinical study of Oxyprim in allopurinol-intolerant gout patients, and the trial data were transferred to Cardiome. Cardiome stated in May 2002 that it intended to commence a further phase II trial of oxypurinol in gout. Phase III trials were in progress in 2003 in this indication. In 1995, ILEX Oncology continued the compassionate use distribution of oxipurinol while establishing a US FDA-approved registration plan for the agent. In November 1998, ILEX received Orphan Drug status for the use of oxipurinol in patients with symptomatic hyperuricaemia. ILEX Oncology's Development Pipeline for 1998 stated that oxipurinol had entered phase II clinical trials for the treatment of hyperuricaemia. In 2001, the clinical trials listing service CenterWatch stated that oxipurinol was in a phase II clinical trial with ILEX Oncology for the treatment of symptomatic hyperuricaemia in patients who are intolerant to allopurinol. The trial appeared to be taking place in the US, and was a multicentre, open-label, 14-week study in 90 patients. In February 2003, Cardiome confirmed beginning patient enrollment in three smaller phase II studies, with the first trial (EXOTIC) now completed. These three smaller proof-of-concept studies will observe surrogate endpoints such as cardiac output and exercise tolerance. The second proof-of-concept study in patients with CHF of ischemic aetiology (IV), known as EXOTIC-EF (Evaluation of XanThine Oxidase Inhibition on Cardiac Ejection Fraction), will assess the effects of oxypurinol on left ventricular performance. The EXOTIC-EF trial will start in the first quarter of 2004 and be completed by the second quarter of 2004. The third, LA PLATA, proof-of-concept study will explore the effects of 1 month of oral oxypurinol therapy on exercise capacity and left ventricular performance. It is projected that the LA PLATA study will start in the first quarter of 2004 and be completed by the third quarter of 2004. During the Heart Failure Society of America's meeting on 21 September 2003, Cardiome presented clinical data from its first proof-of-concept EXOTIC (European Xanthine Oxidase Inhibitors Trial In Cardiac Disease) study. Cardiome intends to conduct a second trial, at the Eppendorf Clinic at the University of Hamburg, to determine the effect of oxypurinol on left ventricular performance in patients with CHF of ischaemic aetiology. This study will be an extension of the original proof-of-concept study. According to the 1st Annual BioPartnering conference held in Vancouver, Canada, in February 2003, Cardiome is seeking co-development partners for oxipurinol in the treatment of congestive heart failure. In July 2003, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a new patent providing additional protection to Cardiome's programme focused on treatment of congestive heart failure with oxypurinol. The patent, No. 6,569,862, was the second issued to the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in this field. The key claims in the new patent cover use of the entire family of drugs known as xanthine oxidase inhibitors applied to contractile disorders of the heart, including congestive heart failure. An earlier patent issued to JHU contained provisions relating to a specific mechanism of action and to specific forms of heart disease. Both patents and related intellectual property are licensed exclusively to Cardiome.

Drugs, Investigational↗
PubMed1995

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment: biotechnology and the administrative state.

The central issue of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment was property: property in the body and intellectual property. Once removed from the body, tissue and body fluids were not legally the property of the Tuskegee subjects. Consequently, there was not a direct relationship between a patient and research that used his sera. The Public Health Service (PHS) was free to exercise its property right in Tuskegee sera to develop serologic tests for syphilis with commercial potential. To camouflage the true meaning, the PHS made a distinction between direct clinical studies and indirect studies of tissue and body fluids. This deception caused all reviews to date to limit their examination to documents labeled by the PHS as directly related to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. This excluded other information in the public domain. Despite the absence of a clinical protocol, this subterfuge led each to falsely conclude that the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment was a clinical study. Based on publications of indirect research using sera and cerebrospinal fluid, this article conceives a very history of the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment. Syphilis could only cultivate in living beings. As in slavery, the generative ability of the body made the Tuskegee subjects real property and gave untreated syphilis and the sera of the Tuskegee subjects immense commercial value. Published protocols exploited the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to invent and commercialize biotechnology for the applied science of syphilis serology.

Alabama↗
PubMed1998

[Patents on life? No patent on life!].

Inventions related to living material are in principle patentable as well as inventions in the "classical" fields of technology as long as they are new, industrially applicable and involve an inventive step. A patent gives to its owner for a limited period of time the exclusive right to prevent others from using his patented new technical know-how. Starting point of patent protection in the field of genetic engineering is a genetic information or a genetically induced characteristic of an organism; there is no such thing as a "Patent on Life". As far as inventions relate to genetically modified organisms, patents give to their owners no additional property rights that might exclude the applicability e.g. of the laws on animal protection. Intellectual property like any other property is subject to the limits set up by law. It is neither scientifically correct nor does it help in finding a solution for the conflict within society to shift the--undoubtedly necessary--discussion about research and application in the field of genetic engineering to a discussion about patent law.

Animal Welfare↗
PubMed2002

Bioinformatics: the role and limitations of patents.

The worldwide market for bioinformatics tools and services is estimated, by some, to exceed US$40 billion within the next five years. As with other biotech companies, patent protection will be key to survival in the marketplace. Although the total number of issued bioinformatics patents is still small, virtually all aspects of bioinformatics constitute patentable subject matter, and the opportunity to generate intellectual property value from investment in bioinformatics should not be neglected.

Computational Biology↗
PubMed1998

Globalization in the pharmaceutical industry, Part II.

This is the second of a two-part report on the pharmaceutical industry. Part II begins with a discussion of foreign direct investment and inter-firm networks, which covers international mergers, acquisitions, and minority participation; market shares of foreign-controlled firms; international collaboration agreements (with a special note on agreements in biotechnology); and licensing agreements. The final section of the report covers governmental policies on health and safety regulation, price regulation, industry and technology, trade, foreign investment, protection of intellectual property, and competition.

Drug Industry↗
PubMed2002

Medicine in the 21st century: global problems, global solutions.

OBJECTIVES: To discuss application areas of information technology in medicine and health care on the occasion of the opening of the Private Universität für Medizinische Informatik und Technik Tirol/University for Health Informatics and Technology Tyrol (UMIT) at Innsbruck, Tyrol, Austria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Important application areas of information technology in medicine and health are appropriate individual access to medical knowledge, new engineering developments such as new radiant imaging methods and the implantable pacemaker/defibrillator devices, mathematical modeling for understanding the workings of the human body, the computer-based patient record, as well as new knowledge in molecular biology, human genetics, and biotechnology. Challenges and responsibilities for medical informatics research include medical data privacy and intellectual property rights inherent in the content of the information systems.

Confidentiality↗
PubMed2004

Cooperative ideas about cooperative strategies.

There is little precedence for rational design of pharmacological strategies that utilize multiple sites of action. However, such pharmaceutical and nutraceutical multitasking may be just the ticket to combat the multifactorial nature of neurodegeneration. This paper summarizes the discussion on several cooperative ideas, particularly on intellectual property issue, current research funding status, and limitations of public and private funding.

Cooperative Behavior↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Creating IPR and design value.

How a start-up company is overcoming competitive pressures by securing worldwide intellectual property rights and delivering customer delight.

Computer-Aided Design↗
PubMed2004

Patenting for the research scientist: an update.

Academic institutional research constantly produces results worthy of patent protection, but coping with the demands of patent law presents considerable challenges to bioscientists working in these institutions. Inventors need, however, to be aware of recent patent office guidelines and court decisions if they are to seek useful intellectual property as a basis for technology transfer to industry.

Animals↗