Patent goon squad

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Background)
Line 3: Line 3:
[[Talk:Patent goon squad|Discuss here]]
[[Talk:Patent goon squad|Discuss here]]
-
==Contentious Patent Applications==
+
=Contentious Patent Applications=
''It might be an idea to post important patents and allow people to add prior art that they might know about.''
''It might be an idea to post important patents and allow people to add prior art that they might know about.''
Line 16: Line 16:
*others?
*others?
-
===Part libraries===
+
==Part libraries==
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+6277632#show US #6277632]
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+6277632#show US #6277632]
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+6495318#show US #6495318]
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+6495318#show US #6495318]
-
===Assembly===
+
==Assembly==
* [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060281113.html US patent application 2006/281113] date May 18, 2005
* [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060281113.html US patent application 2006/281113] date May 18, 2005
** Some of the claims seem obvious to me such as using linker oligos to assemble parts together
** Some of the claims seem obvious to me such as using linker oligos to assemble parts together
-
===Synthesis===
+
==Synthesis==
This seems to be difficult one...we need to define some search terms to find what we are looking for. Actually, identifying useful search parameters for all categories is a good idea
This seems to be difficult one...we need to define some search terms to find what we are looking for. Actually, identifying useful search parameters for all categories is a good idea
Line 34: Line 34:
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+5750335#show US #5750335]
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+5750335#show US #5750335]
-
===Devices===
+
==Devices==
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+6774222#show Molecular Computing Elements Patent]
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+6774222#show Molecular Computing Elements Patent]
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+2005/112615+A1#show Genetic Inverter Patent Application]
*[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patsearch.cgi?patnum=US+2005/112615+A1#show Genetic Inverter Patent Application]
-
====Prior Art (pre June 5,2003)====
+
===Prior Art (pre June 5,2003)===
[http://www.cs.plu.edu/pub/faculty/spillman/seniorprojarts/dna_digital.pdf Weiss & Knight 1999] - see fig 1, a biological inverter based on gene expression.
[http://www.cs.plu.edu/pub/faculty/spillman/seniorprojarts/dna_digital.pdf Weiss & Knight 1999] - see fig 1, a biological inverter based on gene expression.
-
==Open questions==
+
=Open questions=
''Please add/edit -- or answer!''
''Please add/edit -- or answer!''
*How hard is it to filter patents via existing search tools (e.g. into sub-fields)?   
*How hard is it to filter patents via existing search tools (e.g. into sub-fields)?   
Line 60: Line 60:
*Others?
*Others?
-
==Background==
+
=Background=
* The US patent office [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401263.html sounds like it might be interested in this sort of community input (Washington Post)].
* The US patent office [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401263.html sounds like it might be interested in this sort of community input (Washington Post)].
**[http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/ The Peer to Patent Project homepage]
**[http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/ The Peer to Patent Project homepage]
Line 67: Line 67:
* [http://www.wikipatents.com/ Wikipatents] - similar to the peer to patent process.
* [http://www.wikipatents.com/ Wikipatents] - similar to the peer to patent process.
-
==Participants==
+
=Participants=
*Hanna Breetz, Technology and Policy Program at MIT
*Hanna Breetz, Technology and Policy Program at MIT
*Jason Kelly, BE at MIT
*Jason Kelly, BE at MIT

Revision as of 16:22, 14 July 2007

The general idea would be for scientists (who might be so inclined) to actively keep an eye on new patent applications in their fields of interest in order to push back on overly-broad patents. I think there would be an interest in this sort of thing for synthetic biology at a minimum, but the feasibility is an open question :)

Discuss here

Contents

Contentious Patent Applications

It might be an idea to post important patents and allow people to add prior art that they might know about.

Does anybody have suggestions for categories for synthetic biology patents? The patents that are posted now seem to fit into 'devices' and 'assembly'. If we could organize the patents into particular technology categories, we could then create an internal hierarchy of patents based on the breadth of the claims.

Jason R. Kelly: Well, we could just get a laundry list together, some are probably sub-categories of others. Also, we probably care about certain categories more than others.

  • Devices - collection of biological parts that accomplish a specific function
  • Assembly - how to put parts together
  • Synthesis - how to synthesize DNA de novo
  • Part collections/libraries - the idea of collecting (and QCing?) parts
  • others?

Part libraries

Assembly

Synthesis

This seems to be difficult one...we need to define some search terms to find what we are looking for. Actually, identifying useful search parameters for all categories is a good idea

These are the patents over which Codon Devices Inc. is suing Blue Heron Biotechnology (links are press releases from each respective company).

Devices

Prior Art (pre June 5,2003)

Weiss & Knight 1999 - see fig 1, a biological inverter based on gene expression.

Open questions

Please add/edit -- or answer!

  • How hard is it to filter patents via existing search tools (e.g. into sub-fields)?
  • What is the number of 'biology' patent applications submitted each day?
  • Can you get access to the applications early enough in the process to effect the outcome?
  • Is it better to go after existing patents (life the EFF patent busting project) or patent applications?
    • Response from EFF lawyer:
It's very hard to attack patent applications because there
is no formal opposition process and they often change during the
prosecution process so as to be a bit of a moving target.  Also,
we've chosen to go after patents that are actively being used to
attack; when they are at the application stage, it is harder to
predict which ones will be the worst and worth going after.  Good
luck in your effects, though.

Background

Participants

  • Hanna Breetz, Technology and Policy Program at MIT
  • Jason Kelly, BE at MIT
Personal tools