Question about the legal use of PCR

owner-diagnost at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk owner-diagnost at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
Thu Aug 24 03:53:26 EST 2000



Thanks for your reply.  I would have expected the royalty would be
paid through the purchase of taq, but wasn't sure about the PCR
technique.  I'm a little surprised that the amplification of dna has a
pattent, even in the 'home made' sense!!

I'll contact our institution's legal counsel.

Thanks
Brian




On 22 Aug 2000 14:14:15 +0100, news at pale-rider.ins.cwru.edu
[mailto:news at pale-rider.ins.cwru.edu] wrote:

>
>Roche owns most, if not all, of the patents for PCR.  Although some of
>the
>patents have been in litigation for the past year or two, I believe that
>Roche
>is still collecting royalties from those labs that continue to use the
>technique.  When I worked for a clinical lab that was using "homebred"
>PCR
>protocols we had to pay a royalty to Roche even though we were not using
>their
>kits and reagents..
>
>I'm not a legal authority, and I encourage you to consult one (i.e., if
>you
>belong to an academic institution you should talk to your institution's
>legal
>counsel), but I would expect that you would have to obtain the license
>and pay
>the royalty.
>
>nobody at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk, [mailto:nobody at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk], On, Behalf, Of
>wrote:
>
>> Can someone tell me if the PCR technique (?? taq-polymerase) can be
>> used in a plant disease diagnostic lab at a university without a
>> liscense?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian
>>
>> ---
>









More information about the Diagnost mailing list