Venter Institute Claims Patent on Synthetic Life 163
jimsnail writes "J. Craig Venter and the Institute that bears his name are again moving into new territory in the field of genetics. Genetic patents, that is. They are seeking a broad patent that would give them ownership of a 'free living organism that can grow and replicate' constructed entirely from synthetic DNA. The ETC Group is challenging the claim. 'Scientists at the institute designed the bacterium to have a "minimal genome"--the smallest set of genes any organism can live on. The project, which began in the early 2000s, was partly a philosophical exercise: to help define life itself better by identifying its bare-bones requirements. But it was also fraught with commercial possibilities: if one could reliably recreate a standardized, minimal life form, other useful genes could be added in as needed for various purposes.'"
USPTO application text (Score:5, Informative)
Title is wrong, or at best misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about patenting life (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not patenting all life... (Score:3, Informative)
No it does not. It reads as follows:
Claim 1. A set of protein-coding genes that provides the information required for growth and replication of a free-living organism under axenic conditions in a rich bacterial culture medium, wherein the set lacks at least 40 of the 101 protein-coding genes listed in Table 2, or functional equivalents thereof, wherein at least one of the genes in Table 4 is among the lacking genes; wherein the set comprises between 350 and 381 of the 381 protein-coding genes listed in Table 3, or functional equivalents thereof, including at least one of the genes in Table 5; and wherein the set comprises no more than 450 protein-coding genes.
Claims 2-28 are all narrower than claim 1, and include the limitations in claim 1. Very little else in the application matters unless it serves to clarify the meaning of this claim (setting aside statutory subject matter, 35 U.S.C. 101, or description, enablement, and best mode issues, 35 U.S.C. 112).
Therefore if your organism lacks only 39 of the "101 protein-coding genes listed in Table 2" you do not infringe. If your organism has less than 350 of the "381 protein-coding genes listed in Table 3" you do not infringe. If your organism has 451 or more protein-coding genes, you do not infringe.
If you do not know the mere basics of patent law, your thoughts concerning the scope of someone's patent or patent application are "bullcrap."
misleading title, marginal patent (Score:4, Informative)
As mentioned previously they're not patenting synthetic life but a specific minimal set of genes required to produce a replicating bacterium. There was a non-trivial amount of work that went into researching these genes and determining the least combinations necessary for replication in a solution that provides all the basic building blocks (ie. this bacteria will not be synthesizing its own amino acids, I would imagine).
This is could be important for industrial biosynthetic applications. Every protein expressed by a bacteria increases its metabolic load and decreases the efficiency with which it can convert input (sugars, amino acids, nucleotides) into the desired output (insulin, drugs, other useful biocompounds). By determining the minimum necessary set of genes for replication a ground-state bacteria has been designed that can be used as the starting point for designing more efficient expression systems.
It also allows these expression systems to be more fully characterized which can help when attempting to determine and modulate the effect metabolic load and evolution will have on a vat of bacteria as it progresses from generation to generation. One problem with these systems is that synthesizing extra compounds increases the metabolic and decreases the replication rate. If it is possible for the bacteria to mutate and stop expression of the product their metabolic load decreases and they begin to replicate faster; this causes vats of bacteria to tend to evolve such that they stop producing the useful compound. There are ways to get around this (such as turning production on and off using external chemical signals, tying production to survival, etc.) that might be optimized in such a minimal system. Engineering life is tricky because of the extremely high number of potential interactions to be analyzed for every new configuration; it is more difficult because many of these interactions can't be calculated or simulated.
This patent won't be all that useful for more complex human proteins as these require an array of post-translational modification proteins that change the product after the initial synthesis; thus they require a correspondingly complex expression system derived from a yeast cell or an animal cell (I think some worms have been used to develop complex expression systems); Alternately bacteria can be modified to produce the modification proteins. These expression systems have doubtless already been patented or are no longer patentable, so this new patent probably won't be very useful until it is bundled with a set of associated patents for efficient expression systems for various compounds.
Re:Not patenting all life... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, patent attorney i may not be, but RTFA i did, so you can take your arrogant "knowing the mere basics" bullshit and shove it.
TFA did mention very specifically that this patent application was for the minimum genes necessary for life. Now while in the specific instance, they are merely trying to patent the genome of this single microbe. But given their stated intentions to use that then as the building block for engineering other single-celled organisms by simply dropping in the necessary genes, this is in effect trying to patent the single foundation of an entire emergent field.
This sounds to me very much like they are specifically aiming to patent this particular organism to own the ip on the genes necessary for life. Not sure that it would really fucking matter too much if i had this brilliant little microbe designed that didnt infringe on their patent, since those 39 genes I'd have to axe would be fucking necessary for life. This is what i mean when i say 'trying to patent synthetic life'. Now you as the apparently patent-law savvy individual that you are, at least I'm assuming you'd have to be savvy to give code citations anyone with an internet connection could find, may have some further insight into why this patent doesnt say this, and I'm certainly interested to hear what these are. And I'm sure you'll deliver them in the same *cough* polite fashion as your contention that my previous thoughts were bullcrap.
Though you do clearly have grasp on the mere basics of patent law, your ability to discuss the implications of said patents are bullcrap. I'm happy for you being able to muddle through a patent application, i really am. But merely saying 'no the patent actually says X' in response to 'the patent implies Y' isnt really a meaninful thing to add. So unless you're going to do so without being a dick, why dont you just keep it to yourself?
Re:Not patenting all life... (Score:3, Informative)
I prosecute and litigate patents for a living. Your bluster concerning my ability to "muddle through a patent application" does not cure your error. Neither does your reliance on "TFA," which is egregiously wrong, nor does your reliance on the summary, which is also egregiously wrong.
To infringe the patent, if it is granted, you would have to create a set of genes where:
1. the set lacks at least 40 of the 101 protein-coding genes listed in Table 2
and
2. at least one of the genes in Table 4 is among the lacking genes
and
3. the set has between 350 and 381 of the 381 protein-coding genes listed in Table 3
and
4. the set includes at least one of the genes in Table 5
and
5. the set has no more than 450 protein-coding genes.
If any single one of those conditions is not met, your engineered organism is not covered by the patent. There is nothing that requires you to strip any genes out of your organism unless you're trying to engineer a minimalist organism which simultaneously falls within those 5 criterion.
You've said "this is in effect trying to patent the single foundation of an entire emergent field." Yep. You gain that privilege when you create the field. The PCR reaction used in practically all DNA work was patented as US Patents 4,683,195, 4,683,202 and 4,965,188. The junction transistor was patented as US patent 2,569,347. Biology and electronics both survived and flourished.
Your argument that Venter is seeking to patent all viable synthetic life is quite simply wrong. Accept it and move on.