Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25324232›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2014

Patentability of genes: a European Union perspective.

Paul Cole

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cancer biomarker discovery and validation.Translational cancer research · 2015
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Paul ColeBournemouth University, Bournemouth, Dorset BH12 5BB, United Kingdom; and Lucas & Co, Warlingham, Surrey CR6 9HJ, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlike the position in the United States following the recent Supreme Court decision in Myriad, in the European Union naturally occurring genetic sequences, whether of human or other origin, remain patent-eligible. Here the basis for such eligibility in legislation and in case law is explained. The utility of a sequence must be disclosed as a condition of eligibility, and requirements outlined in European Patent Office (EPO) and U.K. case law are discussed. A claimed sequence must also satisfy requirements of novelty and inventive step, the latter being considered primarily using the tests of "obvious to try" and reasonable expectation of success. From both positive and negative examples the significance of an identifiable difficulty supported by documentary and/or experimental evidence is apparent. Issues of priority and subject matter added by amendment during prosecution of an application can create unexpected problems given the narrow interpretation within the EPO of the identity of a disclosed sequence, and these problems are explored using as an example an opposition to a European patent covering BRCA1 gene sequences. Practical steps for the drafting of patent specifications to be filed in Europe are outlined.

Indexed as

GenesPatents as TopicBiotechnologyEuropean Union

Identifiers

PMID25324232
PMCPMC4448586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.