
	Where results make sense

Topic: Oncomouse

Related Topics

Genetically modified

Transgenic

Genetically modified organism

Genetic engineering

Mus musculus

Gene knockout

Genetically modified food

Oncogene

Recombinant DNA technology

Hop (plant)

Biotechnology

FlavrSavr

List of Prime Ministers of Japan

Trygve Lie

British Royal Family

In the News (Wed 9 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Cabinet Chaillot : Patentability of the Harvard transgenic mouse in Canada
		The FCC considers that an oncomouse is a "composition of matter" according to patent claim 1, because it is a mouse in which one has introduced an oncogene sequence.
		The FCC also underlines that the oncomouse is not a discovery of a natura phenomenom, even if mice with a genetic predisposition to develop cancer exist in the nature.
		The FCC precises that to permit the patentability of living organisms as "composition of matter" does not involve the patentability of the human beings, the patent being a form of ownership of property and the possession of human beings being impossible according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	www.chaillot.com /En/news/n26.html (264 words)

	Oncomouse
		The Oncomouse or Harvard mouse is a type of laboratory mouse that has been genetically modified to carry a specific gene called an activated oncogene.
		Patent applications on the oncomouse were filed back in the mid-1980s in numerous countries such as in the United States, in Canada and in Europe through the European Patent Office (EPO).
		European patent application 85304490.7 was filed in June 1985 by "The President and Fellows of Harvard College".
	www.ibpassociation.org /encyclopedia/Biotechnology/Oncomouse.php (319 words)

	EPO press release- Munich, 5 November 2001: "Oncomouse" opposition proceedings resume at EPO
		The "oncomouse" application was filed with the EPO in June 1985.
		The examiners therefore had to decide whether the application was for an "animal variety" within the meaning of the provision, and also whether to invoke Article 53(a) EPC which prohibits patents for "inventions the publication or exploitation of which would be contrary to ordre public or morality".
		In a second decision in October 1991, the examining division granted the "oncomouse" patent as complying with the EPC, commenting that the patent application's purpose - to facilitate cancer research and prevention - was of such importance for humanity as to outweigh any disadvantages such as the suffering of the animals concerned.
	www.european-patent-office.org /news/pressrel/2001_11_05_e.htm (428 words)

	Satya March 97: The Mutant Mouse by Molly Edwards
		In 1992, the oncomouse was accepted as a patentable being by the European Patent Office.
		The oncomouse is not alone as a genetically-altered mouse.
		One of the most disturbing features of the oncomouse is that the company that holds the patent on the rodent also owns patent rights on any animal infected with the oncogene.
	www.satyamag.com /march97/mouse.html (581 words)

	CULTURE MACHINE: vol:1 no:1 Nov 1998 Taking Risks With The Future.
		She then uses the tropes of the FemaleMan and the trademarked OncoMouse to explore the construction of the boundaries between technology and culture, humanity and nature, and science, corporatism and social responsibility, as well as some possibilities for their deconstruction.
		Haraway chooses the trademarked oncomouse as a sister trope for the femaleman because s/he is the first patented animal in the world, a product of the laboratory whose existence is dedicated to providing a physical location for breast cancer research.
		The oncomouse embodies questions about technoscience and the artificiality of dualisms between humans and animals, culture and nature, and science and technology that Haraway chips away at.
	culturemachine.tees.ac.uk /Reviews/rev4.htm (1197 words)

	Oncomouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The Oncomouse or Harvard mouse is a type of laboratory mouse that has been genetically modified using modifications designed by Harvard University and DuPont to carry a specific gene called an activated oncogene.
		In Canada, the Supreme Court in 2002 rejected the patent in Harvard College v.
		Andrew Sharples, The EPO and the Oncomouse: good news for whales, giraffes and patent examiners, The CIPA Journal, April 2003
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Oncomouse (485 words)

	Canadian Supreme Court rejects oncomouse patent \| OUT-LAW.COM
		The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday ruled that a genetically modified mouse, developed by Harvard University to be used in cancer research, is not an invention and cannot be patented under Canadian law.
		The Harvard mouse, also known as "oncomouse" from the Greek word for tumour, was developed in the late 1980s.
		However, an appeals court ruled in 2000 that transgenic mammals, such as the oncomouse, constitute a composition of matter and therefore can be patentable under certain conditions.
	out-law.com /page-3186 (433 words)

	WILL THE ONCOMOUSE SQUEAK THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA?
		The oncomouse journey began in 1985 when the President and Fellows of Harvard College filed a patent application with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), which included claims to nonhuman transgenic mammals with cells that contain an activated oncogene.
		On August 3, 2000, the appellate court determined that the oncomouse is a composition of matter and sent the case back to the CIPO with the direction to grant a patent on the transgenic animal claims.
		On a less bizarre note, another government lawyer argued that the Court must consider the Patent Act in the context in which it was drafted in 1869, a time long before the advent of genetic engineering.
	www.isb.vt.edu /articles/jul0206.htm (1769 words)

	Council for Responsible Genetics
		Named for its possession of an inserted gene sequence conferring susceptibility to cancer, this animal quickly came to be seen as an ideal test subject for toxicology studies and new therapeutic developments in the war on cancer.
		Thirteen years later, the OncoMouse is a prime example of the hazards of mixing science and commerce, illustrating how the growth of intellectual property rights in the life sciences has created practical obstacles to basic research.
		Beyond the use of OncoMouse, DuPont has argued that the Harvard patent enables the company to demand a fee for the use of knockout”; mice, a line of mice with mutations or deletions of critical tumor suppressor genes.
	www.gene-watch.org /genewatch/articles/15-5mice.html (1398 words)

	The Supreme Court of Canada Finds Higher Life Forms Not Patentable Subject Matter
		that a genetically altered mouse ("the oncomouse") was not patentable subject matter.
		The central issue in the appeal was whether the definition of invention encompassed the oncomouse, a higher life form.
		In assessing whether the oncomouse fell within the definition of invention, the Court considered whether the words "manufacture" or "composition of matter" as described in section 2 of the Act, were sufficiently broad enough to encompass higher life forms.
	www.dww.com /articles/higher_life_forms.htm (1326 words)

	Statement Regarding Canadian Supreme Court Decision on "Oncomouse" (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-11)
		Boston--December 5, 2002--The "oncomouse," so dubbed for its ability to reliably reproduce characteristics of various human cancers, was created in Harvard Medical School laboratories in the early 1980s through the careful manipulation of cancer causing genes.
		The oncomouse is used to study how cancers manifest, and to test new treatments for breast, prostate and other forms of this devastating disease.
		The Court's disappointing narrow decision leaned on technical aspects of a 19th century patent law and is counter to the recommendations made earlier this year by the Canadian government's own biotech committee.
	www.hms.harvard.edu /news/releases/125oncomouse.html (338 words)

	in re Harvard College s/materia patentable
		Medications, like the oncomouse, could not be brought into existence without reliance on the "laws of nature" in general and the processes of biochemistry in particular.
		While expressly acknowledging that the oncomouse is new, useful and non-obvious, and therefore meets the usual statutory criteria, the Commissioner of Patents denies that "higher life forms" fall within the subject matter contemplated by Parliament as patentable.
		In the case of the oncomouse, the modified genetic material is a physical substance and therefore "matter".
	www.biotech.bioetica.org /vs2.htm (11731 words)

	EPO press releases / official information Munich, 5 November 2001: "Oncomouse" opposition proceedings resume at EPO: ...
		It remitted the case back to the Examining Division for prosecution of the issue of whether or not the subject-matter of the application is an "animal variety" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC.
		This depended mainly on a careful weighing up of the suffering of the animals and possible risks to the environment on the one hand and the invention's usefulness to mankind on the other.
		The "oncomouse" was the first transgenic animal for which a patent was granted under the EPC.
	www.european-patent-office.org /news/pressrel/ch_2001_11_05_e.htm (636 words)

	Cruel Science > Research > Gene Manipulation > Oncomouse
		A major victory for all animals, non-human and otherwise, was won on December 5 when the Supreme Court of Canada, by a vote of 5:4, refused to issue a patent for “higher life forms” in general and specifically, for a genetically engineered mouse.
		A patent means that if someone wants to use an Oncomouse in her research, she must pay royalties to Harvard and DuPont.
		The Oncomouse patent has been issued in the United States, Japan and Europe, so the fact that the Canadian court had the resolve to decide against the international trend is a victory for the Canadian justice system as well.
	www.cruelscience.ca /research-gm-oncomouse.htm (442 words)

	The Scientist : EPO restricts OncoMouse patent
		With the end of its OncoMouse EPO campaign, Greenpeace hopes to stop the implementation of the 1998 European Biotechnology Directive, which allows for patents of any element of a living organism created in a lab.
		Chambon noted that the EPO usually bases patent decisions on the innovation, not on concerns for the welfare of animals, but that it was still fair to interpret the ruling as a statement that it's acceptable to patent living organisms.
		Nick Bassil, a partner in the UK patent firm Kilburn and Strode, said that although the OncoMouse case is significant to the activists, it's no longer significant for scientists.
	www.the-scientist.com /news/20040726/03 (714 words)

	Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents)
		34 A patent for the Harvard oncomouse was issued by the United States Patent Office on April 12, 1988 and by the European Patent Office on May 13, 1992, despite the explicit power under the European Patent Convention to refuse a patent based on "morality" or "ordre public".
		Indeed, the AZT pill, like the oncomouse, could not be brought into existence without reliance on "the laws of nature" in general and the processes of biochemistry in particular.
		96 The scientific accomplishment manifested in the oncomouse is profound and far-reaching, and a numerical count of the genes modified and the genes not modified misses the point.
	pub.bna.com /ptcj/28155.htm (15451 words)

	Paradise Now - Bryan Crockett
		For instance, the oncomouse is the first patented transgenic lab mouse, engineered to have a human immune system for the purpose of oncology research.
		This sculpture is intended to be a monument to the test object of modern science, human kindís symbolic and literal stand-in personified.
		Almost six feet tall he is nude (as is the oncomouse) and his flesh is a very convincing pale skin tone.
	www.genomicart.org /crockett.htm (213 words)

	The Endocrine Society : News : Endocrine News : 2004 : Patenting Life: Mighty OncoMouse Squeaks About the Ethics of ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-11)
		An Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) challenge of the PTO Rule was dismissed on procedural rather than substantive grounds in a 1991 federal court holding that the ALDF, not being an injured animal or genetic researcher, had no standing to sue.
		The Canadian patent application for the Harvard Oncomouse, geneticallyengineered with the cancer-promoting myc oncogene, was filed in June 1985; it crept through a patent labyrinth of arguments for and against life patents, the former primarily commercial and for exploiting invention, the latter primarily ethical and against the commodification of life.
		The patent on the mouse by the Canadian Patent Office was initially rejected, on the grounds that it was made "primarily by nature." This decision was reversed by a Federal appeals court in August 2000.
	www.endo-society.org /news/endocrine_news/2004/EthicsCorner-Feb2004.cfm (1082 words)

	McCarthy Tétrault LLP - Publications - Of Genetic Mice and Mental Gymnastics (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-11)
		The latest case to wrestle with this recurring conundrum was prompted by the so-called Harvard oncomouse.
		The question that confronted the Supreme Court was whether the developers of the oncomouse should be afforded patent protection for their creation.
		The majority approached the central question of whether the oncomouse could be patented largely on the narrow basis of statutory interpretation.
	www.mccarthy.ca /pubs/publication.asp?pub_code=542 (1886 words)

	Heller Ehrman - Industry News (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-11)
		The first set of claims to the transgenic mouse (‘oncomouse') was rejected by the Canadian Patent Office, while the second set of claims to the method was accepted.
		Harvard's appeal to the Federal Court was unsuccessful – the latter likewise deemed the ‘oncomouse' unpatentable for lack of control over the entirety of the mouse's characteristics.
		On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, the claims were allowed on the basis that the ‘oncomouse' was a "composition of matter" and, thus, patentable.
	www.hewm.com /en/news/industry/industry_1194.html (1987 words)

	4-Patents: Oncomouse patent rejected by Supreme Court of Canada
		Justice Ian Binnie expressed admiration for the discovery and argued that it was precisely the sort of invention the Patent Act was meant to protect.
		Harvard University won patents on the OncoMouse in the United States, Europe and Japan more than a decade ago; Canada stands alone among affluent nations in not granting patents on animals and plants.
		Ironically, the OncoMouse has recently re-emerged as a news item in the United States as leading cancer researchers charge that the meddlesome licencing policies of DuPont (which holds exclusive rights to the OncoMouse) are deterring scientists from undertaking studies with it.
	www.gene.ch /genet/2002/Dec/msg00019.html (2087 words)

	Supreme Court to enter debate over biotech mouse - Capital News Online
		And, once the federal government appeals the Oncomouse patent case, this genetically modified mouse will be the centre of heated debate on the ethics of patenting life.
		The government sought leave to appeal the case this month, after the Federal Court of Appeal issued a 2-1 split decision on Aug. 3 that granted ownership of the Oncomouse to Harvard College in Boston.
		The court held that the Oncomouse was a "composition of matter" and qualifies for a patent within the meaning of the current Patent Act.
	www.carleton.ca /jmc/cnews/20102000/n3.htm (845 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)