Sydney Uni first in Aust to license GTG patents

The University of Sydney has become the first research institution in Australia to be granted a non-exclusive research licence by Genetic Technologies (GTG) to use its controversial non-coding DNA patents.

The one-off US$1000 (AUD$1510.16) licence fee covers all researchers at the university using GTG's patented non-coding DNA analysis methods for the remaining 15-year life of the patents. But any commercial use of the patents by university researchers will require a separate licence.

The company has only issued one other research licence to date, to the University of Utah, also for US$1000.

"The university is pleased to have negotiated this licence with GTG to facilitate any research that might be undertaken within the university in the field of non-coding DNA that uses GTG's patents," said Kevin Croft, deputy director of the university's Business Liaison Office.

Croft did not have an estimate of the number of researchers covered by the licence, but said that it was likely to change from day to day depending on research activities.

GTG executive chairman Dr Mervyn Jacobson said that he was proud to license the patents to one of Australia's most prominent research institutions.

"It is our intention to continue to support all research efforts in the field of non-coding DNA by making our patents accessible and affordable and we encourage similar research institutions to work with us in this manner," said Jacobson.

GTG has been criticised recently for taking a stance in favour of requiring licences for research uses of its patents. But the company believes there is essentially no difference between what it is asking for and the embedded research licence fees commonly paid by researchers on software, reagents and equipment.

"The hysteria generated by this licensing arrangement has been spectacular and grossly exaggerated -- especially given the minimal impact of such a small amount of money, which is several thousand-fold less than the licenses granted to pure commercial entities. The minimal nature of this amount reflects the company's recognition of and support of the role basic research plays in our society," the company stated in a recent letter sent to professionals in pathology and genetics around Australia, clarifying its position on its licensing strategy.

The letter notes that the belief that researchers are exempt from honouring or respecting its obligations under patent law is erroneous, citing a current US Supreme Court case, Madey vs Duke University, over this issue. In this case, the court has suggested that the vast majority of research in universities and research institutions would be subject to patent liability.