Silico Research study finds pharma failing to patent computing technologies
The study, covering 317 companies, focused on patents for software, databases and computer methods listed under the international patent designation G06.'s It did not consider pending patents or those patents issued to large software companies like Microsoft, Oracle and IBM that do not produce products specific to pharma and biotech.
We were interested in the effect of the bioinformatics, genomic and proteomic information revolutions in terms of the number of patents issued, said Emmett Power, Senior Partner at Silico Research and lead analyst on the study. We also wanted to get a handle on where the hot spots are in terms of bioinformatics originality and creativity.
Since 1996, according to the study, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued only 50 software-related patents to companies in the industry. In fact, the fiftieth patent was issued on April 24, 2001 to Incyte Genomics on a database for biomolecular sequence information.
Incyte and Affymetrix share the top spot on the list when it comes to number of computing technology patents with six each. PE Corporation follows closely with five and Tripos, 3-Dimensional Pharmaceuticals and Entelos each hold three.
When it comes to large pharmaceutical companies, the study uncovered only one computing technology patent issued to Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) in 1997 for a pharmaceutical care management system. The other major pharmaceutical companies are all absent from the listing.
Power is surprised by the lack of patents issued to pharmaceutical companies. We had expected large pharmaceutical companies to be registering significant numbers of technology and method-related patents as a matter of course, he said.
After all, the pharmaceutical industry is no stranger to the patent office. The bread and butter of the industry comes from product patents issued on its prescription drugs. And as Power points out, the industry employs teams of computer scientists in original research roles who are routinely developing technologies worthy of patent protection.
Add the fact that senior executives throughout the industry are preaching the importance of the convergence of life and information technologies, and we had expected to see convergence patents's staked out across the landscape, Power said.
But it appears in the heated race to patent genes and compounds, many companies are failing to protect the technologies that are facilitating those discoveries. For example, in stark contrast to its six computer technology patents, Incyte Genomics holds approximately 400 patents on human genes and has another 6,500 applications pending approval.
Power cautions against ignoring the value of original methods and computer technology developed as part of the discovery and development process. This value could be considerable going forward, he said. That value may be realized by locking competitors out of the technology or method. It may, alternatively, be realized through a licensing or alliance strategy. Whichever, without a patent the technology is valueless.
So, why is the industry ignoring this untapped opportunity? Power believes it's a matter of mindset and process.
Pharmaceutical, biotechnology and genomic companies need to get information technologists and bioinformaticians talking to the patent department, he said. They need to track the value created by information technologists and open the patent mindset to the possibility of generating intellectual property value other than through compound and genetic end-points.