Wednesday, February 23, 2011

US 7,893,315: Derivation of embryonic stem cells and embryo-derived cells

The first claim of the ACT patent titled Derivation of embryonic stem cells and embryo-derived cells states:

An in vitro method of producing human embryonic stem (ES) cells from a blastomere, comprising:
(a) providing a blastomere isolated from a human embryo; (b) culturing the blastomere until said blastomere gives rise to a cluster of two or more progeny blastomeres; (c) culturing the cluster of two or more progeny blastomeres with human pluripotent cells to obtain a culture of human ES cells that originate from the cluster of progeny blastomeres; (d) isolating the human ES cells that originate from the cluster of progeny blastomeres of step (c).

A key part of the claim is the text:

culturing the blastomere until said blastomere gives rise to a cluster of two or more progeny blastomeres;

The background of the invention includes the text:

Additionally, certain members of the public object to embryonic stem (ES) cell research using cell lines derived from the inner cell mass of blastocysts because this derivation procedure destroys the preimplantation, blastocyst-stage embryo. As such, the blastocyst-stage embryo from which ES cells are conventionally produced cannot be cryopreserved, frozen for later use, or permitted to develop further.

The present invention provides novel methods for deriving ES cells, ES cell lines, and other embryo-derived (ED) cells for use in research and medicine. The methods described herein permit the derivation of ES cells, ES cell lines, and other ED cells from embryos but without the need to destroy those embryos.


The assignee of the invention is stated to be Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (Marlborough, MA) . This company is sometimes referred to as ACT.

The priority of the issued patent is indicated as follows: This application in a continuation-in-part of and claims the benefit of priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 11/267,555, filed Nov. 4, 2005, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/624,827, filed Nov. 4, 2004; 60/662,489, filed Mar. 15, 2005; 60/687,158, filed Jun. 3, 2005; 60/723,066, filed Oct. 3, 2005; and 60/726,775, filed on Oct. 14, 2005. This application also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/797,449, filed May 3, 2006; 60/798,065, filed May 4, 2006; 60/831,698, filed Jul. 17, 2006, and 60/839,622, filed Aug. 23, 2006.

Separately, from a September 2006 IPBiz post about the californiastemcellreport saying ACT was headquartered in Alameda, CA:

The stemcellreport keeps emphasizing the "ACT in Alameda" angle [eg, As for the physical location of the center and ACT, CGS is in Oakland which is linked by an underwater tunnel and draw bridges to the island (Alameda) in San Francisco Bay that houses ACT.] although ACT originated in Massachusetts and the work discussed in Nature and in the disputed press releases all comes from Massachusetts. ACT set up shop in California to benefit from the largesse of Proposition 71.

**Of continuation-in-part applications, from Law360, To CIP Or Not To CIP? There Is No Question:

Another often-overlooked problem with CIPs is that their own parent applications can sometimes be used against them as prior art. Careful consideration must be given to avoiding this type of problem with a CIP application, as well.
For example, if further developments are not made promptly after filing the first parent application on an invention, the publication of that parent application starts a one-year clock running after which it will be used to reject further developments even by the same inventors.
If the claims of the CIP application are based on both the original disclosure and new matter, as is often the case, the claims must be even more carefully drafted than usual.
If you want to file claims based on closely related developments that are not patentably distinct from the claims in the parent application, a CIP application may be needed. This is sometimes the most beneficial course of action despite all the potential deficiencies of a CIP application.
On the other hand, if the new development is not sufficiently described in the parent application and is patentably distinct from the claims of the parent application, it is typically recommended to file a new application. This will ensure that the term of any patent that issues from the new application is maximized.
Yet another weakness of a CIP application was made clear in the PowerOasis v. T-Mobile decision issued recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. PowerOasis held that the presumption of validity given a patent does not extend to the question of priority in most CIP applications.


1 Comments:

Blogger d said...

I am not sure what you are indicating regarding ACT Alameda, is there a point you are making here?

5:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home