Discover new ways to save our lanet


gel-labs.com keyword stats



Most current MSN search phrases:

california lab food safety  
Most current Yahoo search phrases:

product testing in new jersey  

Which Way is the CIRM IP Task Force Heading On Stem Cell Research?

A post by David Jensen indifferentiate into derivatives of endoderm,
californiastemcellreport on April 25 had somemesoderm, and ectoderm tissues throughout the
quotes relevant to CIRM's IP (intellectualculture,  and
property) Task Force meeting in March 2006
and to a meeting schedulued for San Diego on(iv) will not differentiate when cultured on
Thursday, April 27.--> Ed Penhoet, chair ofa fibroblast feeder layer.First claim of US
the task force, said last month's hearing6,200,806 (the application leading to the
raised some fundamental questions."What are'806 patent was a divisional of the
we really attempting to do? Are we trying toapplication leading to the '780 patent) :A
drive therapies as rapidly as possible? Arepurified preparation of pluripotent human
we trying to stimulate business inembryonic stem cells which(i) will
California? Do we want to grow smallproliferate in an in vitro culture for over
companies? There (is) a whole set ofone  year,
potentially conflicting aims," Penhoet
said.As a comment, one notes the CIRM people(ii) maintains a karyotype in which the
need to get their act together to spend theirchromosomes are euploid and not altered
money in a coherent manner, and not havethrough  prolonged  culture,
conflicting aims. It's one thing if this is
a WPA project for biologists; it's another(iii) maintains the potential to
thing if one is trying to get royalties fromdifferentiate to derivatives of endoderm,
patents, and it's still another thing tomesoderm, and ectoderm tissues throughout the
focus on getting a useful product to market.culture,  and
The WPA project model is the easiest to
accomplish ("we spent a lot of money in an(iv) is inhibited from differentiation when
important area and employed lots ofcultured on a fibroblast feeder layer.Looking
scientists") but is most likely to lead tocarefully, one will note that the basic
disappointment.--> Brad Margus, CEO ofpreparation (first line) and all elements
Perlegen Sciences of Mountain View, Ca., told(i-iv) are different between the basic claims
the task force that if CIRM wants to be anof the two patents. For someone to get the
agent that produces the next big thing intype of patent protection to encourage the
stem cells, it needs to minimize nonfinancialinvestment to bring a product to market, the
restrictions and heavy royalties."I'd likeperson will need to get a broad claim, one
California to try to do it differentlythat is not limited to the specific patient
....and think a little smarter. If therewho will be the recipient of the
really is a company out there that has the"patient-specific" stem cells. This need is
next thing that you need in stem cellapt to foster a patent-thicket problem.Geron
research to happen, and your objectivehas exclusive rights in the Thomson patents
scientific advisors say this is what we want,in certain areas. For investment, Geron has
you should be really, really aggressive insought private investors, largely ignoring
getting it. And I'm concerned that some ofthe Congressional debates over expanding
these things that we're throwing out there,federal research dollars and the vast
like revenue sharing or the capping what abureaucracy that has held up state funding in
company (can earn), will only defeat thatCalifornia. "Given their financial acumen,
purpose."As a comment, one "next big thing inthey are pretty much self-sustaining for the
embryonic stem cells" is to do what Hwangforeseeable future," says Steve Brozak, an
Woo-Suk claimed to have done in 2005: createanalyst at WBB Securities, a brokerage based
patient specific embryonic stem cell lines.in San Diego. "They've managed that by
All the "objective science advisors" in thetapping into the capital markets. These folks
world failed to counsel anyone that Hwang'shave learned very well; they don't want to be
work was fraudulent, so one has to takecaught at the mercy of anybody." Geron has
advice in this area with a grain of salt.spent about $100 million in stem cell
Beyond doing patient-specific stem cells, oneresearch over the last 10 years, small in
still needs to use such things in somecomparison to California's potential of $3
beneficial way to actually help human beings.billion over the next 10 years. Geron
That objective may be more than 10 years inannounced it expects to file for permission
the future. Most venture capitalists seem tofrom the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]
think the time line for a real product isto begin trials for an
long.--> One executive from Genentech, whichembryonic-stem-cell-based therapy for
has only a peripheral stem cell interest,spinal-chord injuries this year. [information
told the task force that it takes somethingand quote from smartmoney.com] Keep in mind,
like $1 billion to push a product to market.under 35 USC 271(e)(1) as interpreted in the
He said that for every dollar in research,Merck v. Integra case, anyone is pretty much
another $5 is need for development. And thefree to infringe anyone else's patents for
odds of developing a successful product oncepurposes of obtaining information needed by
it starts clinical testing on humans rangethe FDA.The Washburn article was discussed in
from one in three to one in five.As aa previous ezine piece: Ebert, Lawrence.
comment, one has to be careful to note that(2006, April 12). Los Angeles Times Article
an effective business model forWay Off Base on Stem Cell Issues.
patient-specific stem cells (geared toEzineArticles. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from
INDIVIDUALS) is apt to be different from areluctance of venture capitalists to invest
business model for blockbuster drugs (gearedin stem cell research is discussed in an
to MANY PEOPLE taking the SAME drug).As someezine piece: Ebert, Lawrence. (2006, April
guidance, one can contemplate the basic24). MIT Technology Review Concern Over WARF
composition of matter claims of the ThomsonPatent Royalty Demand To CIRM Over Stem Cells
WARF patents, recently strongly criticized byIs Misguided. EzineArticles. Retrieved April
Washburn in the Los Angeles Times.First claim27, 2006, from B. Ebert is a registered
of US 5,843,780:A purified preparation ofpatent attorney located in central New
primate embryonic stem cells which(i) isJersey. He holds a Ph.D. from Stanford, a
capable of proliferation in an in vitroJ.D. from the University of Chicago,
culture  for  over  one  year,maintains a blog at IPBiz.blogspot.com, and
is the author of LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM
(ii) maintains a karyotype in which all theTHE HWANG MATTER: ANALYZING INNOVATION THE
chromosomes characteristic of the primateRIGHT WAY, published in the Journal of the
species are present and not noticeablyPatent & Trademark Office Society [88 JPTOS
altered  through  prolonged  culture,239 (March 2006)]. Ebert is listed in Marquis
Who's Who in America, Diamond Edition, 2005.
(iii) maintains the potential toEzine draft submitted April 27, 2006.



1 A B C D E F 96 97 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137