Ipr In Genomic Ai Ip.
1. Introduction: IPR in Genomic AI IP
Genomic AI refers to the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to analyze genomic data for applications such as:
Drug discovery and precision medicine
Gene editing (CRISPR, gene therapy)
Disease prediction and diagnostics
Personalized nutrition and lifestyle interventions
The IP in Genomic AI can include:
Patents: Novel algorithms, gene editing methods, diagnostic tools
Copyrights: Software, training datasets, AI models
Trade secrets: Proprietary datasets, models, pipelines
Data rights: Genomic databases and patient-derived data
Licensing: Third-party datasets, AI libraries
Corporate audits in genomic AI focus on:
Ownership of algorithms, models, and genomic data
Licensing and compliance with regulations (HIPAA, GDPR, etc.)
Freedom-to-operate (FTO) and patent infringement risks
Protection of proprietary datasets and trade secrets
Commercialization potential of IP
2. Key IPR Issues in Genomic AI
| Type of IP | Example in Genomic AI | Audit Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Patent | CRISPR gene-editing method, AI-based diagnostic methods | Ownership, validity, infringement, FTO |
| Copyright | AI code for genomic analysis, datasets | Licensing, ownership, derivative works |
| Trade Secret | Proprietary genomic datasets, model pipelines | Access control, NDAs, internal compliance |
| Data Rights | Patient genomic data, clinical trial data | Legal compliance, consent, anonymization |
| Licensing | Third-party AI libraries or genomic datasets | Ensure compliance with open-source or commercial licenses |
3. Case Laws Relevant to Genomic AI IP
Here are six detailed cases relevant to IPR in genomic AI:
Case 1: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013, U.S.)
Background:
Myriad Genetics held patents for isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, used in breast and ovarian cancer diagnostics.
Key Points:
The Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented, but synthetically created DNA (cDNA) can be patented.
Myriad's AI pipelines that relied on gene sequences had implications for patent eligibility.
Relevance to Genomic AI:
AI-driven analysis of naturally occurring genes may not be patentable, but methods and synthetic sequences can be.
Corporate audits must distinguish between patentable inventions vs. naturally occurring data.
Case 2: AMP v. Myriad (Lower Court Decisions, 2010–2012)
Background:
Before the Supreme Court ruling, multiple institutions challenged Myriad’s patent on BRCA genes.
Key Points:
Courts considered whether isolated DNA is a product of nature.
The lower courts initially allowed some claims but rejected others.
Relevance:
Important for auditing genomic AI IP: the AI algorithm itself may be patentable, but the underlying natural gene data often is not.
Case 3: Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute (2018, U.S.)
Background:
Dispute over CRISPR-Cas9 patent ownership for gene editing.
UC claimed patent for eukaryotic CRISPR use.
Broad Institute claimed priority for practical applications in cells.
Key Points:
USPTO awarded Broad priority, emphasizing practical application and enablement.
Highlights the complexity of patent ownership in cutting-edge biotech.
Relevance to Genomic AI:
Corporate audits must verify chain of title, especially in collaborative genomic AI research.
Ownership disputes are common when AI teams work with academic institutions or biotech startups.
Case 4: Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics (2015, U.S.)
Background:
Sequenom patented a non-invasive prenatal diagnostic (NIPD) method using fetal DNA from maternal blood.
Key Points:
Court invalidated the patent for claiming a natural phenomenon without inventive steps.
The principle: discovering natural correlations alone is not patentable.
Relevance:
AI algorithms that find patterns in genomic data may not be patentable unless the method involves a novel and non-obvious technique.
Important for audits: distinguish between AI analysis (patentable) vs. raw genomic correlations (not patentable).
Case 5: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012, U.S.)
Background:
Prometheus patented a method of adjusting drug dosage based on metabolite levels.
Key Points:
Supreme Court held that laws of nature are not patentable, and merely applying them with routine steps is insufficient.
Established the “natural law + inventive application” principle.
Relevance:
In genomic AI, a model predicting disease risk must include inventive technical steps, not just correlations.
Audits must ensure that patent claims are novel, non-obvious, and practically applied.
Case 6: Illumina, Inc. v. BGI Genomics (2019, U.S.)
Background:
Illumina sued BGI for patent infringement on sequencing-by-synthesis technology used in genomic AI pipelines.
Key Points:
Court emphasized patent validity, licensing, and freedom-to-operate (FTO).
Highlighted the commercial and litigation risk of using genomic AI pipelines with patented technologies.
Relevance:
Corporate audits must identify third-party patents and licensing obligations, especially for AI tools in genomic sequencing.
4. Key Takeaways for Corporate Audits in Genomic AI IP
Patent Eligibility:
Naturally occurring genomic sequences are not patentable, but cDNA, synthetic genes, and AI methods often are.
Algorithm & Software IP:
AI models, code, and training pipelines should be protected under copyrights or trade secrets.
Trade Secrets & Data Rights:
Proprietary genomic datasets are critical IP; ensure access control and NDAs.
Licensing & Freedom-to-Operate:
Third-party patents (sequencing, CRISPR, AI libraries) must be audited for compliance and risk.
Documentation:
Maintain research notes, lab notebooks, and technical specifications for patent filing and defense.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | IP Type | Jurisdiction | Genomic AI Relevance | Audit Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP v. Myriad / Myriad Genetics | Patent | U.S. | Gene sequencing | Distinguish patentable AI methods vs. natural DNA |
| Regents of UC v. Broad | Patent | U.S. | CRISPR | Verify chain of title, co-inventorship |
| Sequenom v. Ariosa | Patent | U.S. | NIPD methods | Novelty requirement for AI genomic methods |
| Mayo v. Prometheus | Patent | U.S. | Biomarker-based dosing | Ensure inventive step beyond natural correlation |
| Illumina v. BGI Genomics | Patent/Tech | U.S. | Sequencing pipelines | Licensing and FTO audit |
| University of Utah / Genetic Diagnostics | Patent | U.S. | AI diagnostic methods | Ensure patents cover AI analytics, not just data |
RELATED Blog
comments