Patent Law

The patent world of iPS (stem cells): Yamanaka, Bayer, and iZumi

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

A question a California taxpayer might ask is "how" has CIRM improved the life of average folks in California? You seem to say financing (ie spending money) and training are justifications. What is CIRM giving back? In defeating the stem cell bond proposal, people in New Jersey seemed to have figured out there weren't good answers. When Prop. 71/CIRM was passed, the available knowledge was that Hwang Woo Suk's discoveries were real. Years have passed, and no one has shown Hwang's claims are real. Of the "sperm" incident, NPR noted: "Critics at the time sniffed to reporters that the would-be sperm-makers were over-claiming. That the wiggling cells in a dish indeed had tails, but there was no proof that they were truly potent (or had other important sperm-like characteristics)."

Of the "financing" matter, there were earlier claims that CIRM financed Yamanaka. There is no evidence of this, and when questioned, stemcellreport did an "el-foldo." There is a separate matter: whether Yamanaka was scooped by Bayer AG on iPS, and what might have happened because of this.

TMCNet wrote of the Bayer application:

The application was submitted around three months before a Japanese team led by Kyoto University professor Shinya Yamanaka announced the successful generation of iPS cells from human cells.

The data showed that Bayer submitted patent applications for more than one method, in addition to the technique employed by the Kyoto University team.

[IPBiz mentioned the issue of Yamanaka being scooped on iPS.]

As a followup, Breitbart reported on 12 Feb 09:

The Japanese unit of German chemical giant Bayer A.G., Bayer Yakuhin Ltd., said Thursday it would sell a set of patents on producing iPS cells, regarded as key in regenerative medicine, to a U.S. venture firm.

The three patents to be sold to iZumi Bio Inc. include Bayer Yakuhin's main method of producing iPS, or induced pluripotent stem cells, which have the potential to grow into any type of human body tissue. Bayer Yakuhin filed for Japanese and international patents on the method in June 2007.

(...)

U.S. venture iZumi Bio, based in Mountain View, California, was founded in 2007. It is funded through equity investments by Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers and Highland Capital Partners

[IPBiz suspects these are patent applications, not issued patents.]

BUT, the plot gets still more interesting. In a post titled iZumi Bio's Pact with Kyoto U May Help Bolster Firm's Position as Early Leader in iPSC Tech , Ben Butkus wrote on 22 April 09:

California-based biotech startup iZumi Bio said last week that it will collaborate with Kyoto University's Center for iPS Cell Research and Application to explore using induced pluripotent stem cells to develop new drug-discovery tools and cell-based therapies, particularly in the area of neurological disorders.

The announcement comes approximately one month after iZumi acquired from German pharma giant Bayer rights to what it believes to be a seminal patent application related to methods for inducing pluripotent stem cells. The deal also follows by about a year iZumi licensing from San Francisco's Gladstone Institutes certain patents related to the use of iPSCs in cardiovascular disease as part of a research partnership between the two organizations.

Text of the Butkus article that should be of interest to californiastemcellreport:

However, the company [iZumi], based in South San Francisco, Calif., does appear to be amassing pertinent IP and allying itself with key players in what is shaping up to be a complicated IP landscape surrounding iPSCs.

"You want to be careful trying to build your company only on IP," Walker told BTW. "It's important to have an ability to operate and continue to practice your science, and we believe we clearly have that."

According to Walker, iZumi was founded in 2007 as a culmination of discussions between Shinya Yamanaka, director of CiRA and professor of stem cell biology at Kyoto's Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences, and Beth Seidenberg, a partner at Bay Area life-sciences venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers.

Yamanaka, who also has a joint appointment at the Gladstone Institute, had been working with Seidenberg to identify commercial opportunities in the area of stem cells and regenerative medicine.

KPCB, along with Highland Ventures, co-led a $20 million financing round in iZumi last summer to specifically explore such opportunities based on breakthrough work that Yamanaka was conducting in iPSC induction.

Thus, iZumi, with ties to Yamanaka, bought up the Bayer intellectual property on iPS which scooped Yamanaka. Where does this leave the California taxpayer and CIRM on iPS?

***On the reporting by californiastemcellreport about the funding of Yamanaka:

Spinning in action: Yamanaka funding and CIRM, including the text: An ignoring of the fact that Gladstone SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT Yamanaka to take CIRM money, EXPLICITLY BECAUSE OF CONCERNS about CIRM's IP policy.

On the absence of evidence that Yamanaka accepted a CIRM grant

Full post as published by IPBiz on August 01, 2009 (boomark / email).