Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGSI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: William Nelson who wrote (211)	2/18/1998 9:27:00 AM
From: Larry Dreher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1127

It is my understanding that they have the most patents. I heard this from Murphy and since he seems to be getting trashed lately, I feel compelled to name my source :)

To: William Nelson who wrote (211)	2/18/1998 8:02:00 PM
From: Scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1127

No, HGS has not patented the most genes. HGS currently has 18 issued U.S. patents, which contain at most one gene per patent. By contrast, Genentech has 387 issued U.S. patents, Amgen 112, and Biogen 75. While not all of these are to genes, each clearly has more gene patents than HGS, by far. Lots of people do not make the necessary distinction between what has been FILED as a patent APPLICATION, and what has been "patented", namely what has been argued, examined, granted and turned into an issued patent. Big difference. You could file a patent application tomorrow for less than $400. This gives you no rights, until you get the patent office to agree to grant the patent. Now if we talk about "pending" patent applications, those that are sitting in the patent office, that is a different story. HGS has hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them. The vast majority are NOT on "genes", but on gene fragments, also called EST's. Each of these applications may describe many, in some cases thousands, of gene fragments. What is the difference? To describe a gene, you have to do research to determine the entire sequence that codes for a complete protein, and typically you have some idea of what the protein is involved in, which leads to some idea of diagnostic or therapeutic uses. On the other hand, to come up with an EST, all you have to do is dump some human DNA into a gene sequencing machine and turn it on. Typically you have no idea what it does. In order to be patentable, a new invention must be useful. The PTO (patent office) says that these fragments meet the requirement of usefulness in that they can be used to "probe", namely to identify the section of the human chromosome that they came from. The Patent Office, in a hotly disputed move, has also decided that anyone who comes up with an EST gets a patent that covers not only the fragment, but also covers any larger pieces of DNA that include the EST fragment. That is the basis of much of HGS' value, since these questionable claims to the large, EST-containing sequences will "dominate" patents that come along and find real genes. In other words, any company that comes along from now on and finds a new EPO or other gene of great medical value is likely that the new gene will contain one of HGS' EST's. The new gene cannot be sold without paying off HGS, by licensing its EST patents. HGS will have a piece of most new drugs from now on. But that is very different from HGS having really found genes, and thus really contributing to medical progress.