Are patents evidence for scientific genuineness?

After reading my article on DMIT ( DMIT pseudo-science ) and the blog  on this page ... thumbrule-dermatoglyphics-is-fraud , a person sent me this message:

 Hi Dr. Krishna, 
I have read your article and others' blogs based on DMIT. I am so confused, when I am looking on this I found that US has issued a patent Act on DMIT (US7406186 US Patent ACT) please have a look. Is  it proof that there is some scientific study behind DMIT. "Can patenting pseudo-science makes it genuine science?" Please reply me.

Krishna's reply: 

 I am glad you brought this to my notice. When there are so many people around I wonder why you chose only me to put the Q to and get the answer. 

Anyway it is normal for people to get confused when there is so much misinformation flying around.

However, patents are dealt by law and in several cases utility of the patents have not been verified properly. Independent inventors typically want to do the minimum amount of experimentation necessary to satisfy the patent office.“Useful” is often a more difficult standard to meet than “new.” Many standards are not met using scientific methods. Just because you get a patent for something doesn't mean it is scientifically proven that it actually works.

Homeopathic medicines (7) are a good example. They don't work and homeopathy was marked as pseudo-science. But several of the Homeopathy medicines have been patented! This doesn't make it genuine science.

Similarly some aspects of astrology have been patented (8)! And astrology has been put in the top three positions in the list of pseudoscience by scientists! ( Why Astrology is Pseudo-science )

I read the patent details you mentioned (1).  

Several patents have been challenged in courts too (3). There are ways for third parties to challenge the validity of an allowed or issued patent at the national patent office; these are called opposition proceedings. It is also possible to challenge the validity of a patent in court. In either case, the challenging party tries to prove that the patent should never have been granted. There are several grounds for challenges: the claimed subject matter is not patentable subject matter at all; the claimed subject matter was actually not new, or was obvious to experts in the field, at the time the application was filed; or that some kind of fraud was committed during prosecution with regard to listing of inventors, representations about when discoveries were made, etc. Patents can be found to be invalid in whole or in part for any of these reasons.  Poor quality patents have led to criticism of the patent office as well as the system itself several times (4,5).

A patent is a form of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, selling, and importing an invention for a limited period of years, in exchange for publishing an enabling public disclosure of the invention.

A registered patent agent that are recognized by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should have a  bachelor's degree in a field of science, technology or engineering that is recognized by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That is all what is needed!

A patent engineer or patent scientist is a patent professional who is typically involved in preparing and prosecuting patent applications. ... Patent scientists and engineers often pursue either patent agent qualification and/or attend law school (this applies in the U.S. but not in Europe) to become patent attorneys. If you have a law degree in addition to the science or engineering background and you pass the patent bar exam then you will be registered as a patent attorney.

Patent scientists need not be actual highly qualified PhDs, eventhough it helps if you have some research experience. But in most countries, people involved with patents are not well qualified in science to deal with the subject efficiently. So  loopholes are common.

The bulk of a patent application is a detailed description of the invention, laying down claims for what makes it "novel" and "inventive". Patent applications are sent to a national or international patent office. It is then the job of patent examiners -- another patent-related job performed by trained scientists -- to decide whether the claimed invention is sufficiently novel and inventive to be granted a patent. First task of these people is to search through the scientific literature, magazines, and patent databases for any prior disclosure of the invention, which would rule out patenting. Then utility is dealt with but not in the way it is done like experts doing the peer-reviewing. 

Patents Are Examined, They Are NOT Peer-Reviewed. Unlike publications in scientific journals, patent applications are not sent to reviewers for comments on technological aspects. ... Whether a granted patent is scientifically or technologically valid is established by the final users of the patented invention (10).

Publishing a paper is different from patenting something.  For good publication you require a very sound science, but unfortunately for patent you just require novelty and some utility. For researcher involved in university and teaching or a scientist working in a research institute, a paper is worth more than a patent. For individual researcher and businessmen, patent can be better. You don't need to have high qualifications and experience (just a good imagination can work) to make a patent but you need those to publish a good paper. For instance, an "elastic waistband" can be patented but can not be published as a paper. Any one can patent anything these days. A patent is not worth the paper it is written on if it can't be commercialized. Most of the patents related to chemistry and biology  are not rigorously checked for scientific merit. As an academic, a publication in a peer reviewed journal and the subsequent citation of your paper by your peers, is worth a lot more than a non viable patent (9). 

A degree in science is the typical minimum requirement for entering the patenting profession, though in the United States and Australia trained lawyers may litigate patents without a science background. It helps to have a Ph.D., to better understand an invention and search journal articles more effectively.

Still, scientists have a lot to learn beyond their science training. They must learn some patent law, even if they don't pursue a full law degree. In the United States, would-be patent agents often prepare for the patent bar exam through home study, workbooks, and formal courses.

In Australia and the United Kingdom, scientists must have 2 years of patent work experience to be eligible for professional registration. In these countries, scientists enter the profession through a traineeship. Trainees are offered a mixture of mentorship and in-house or university courses by their employer to help them obtain the formal qualifications. Becoming a patent attorney in Australia, for example, requires passing postgraduate intellectual property courses, such as those currently on offer at the University of Melbourne; the University of Technology, Sydney; and Monash University. In the United Kingdom, trainee patent attorneys must prove their legal knowledge by taking two sets of exams, although a postgraduate certificate or M.Sc. degree in intellectual property law (available at Queen Mary, University of London, and Manchester, Bournemouth, and Brunel universities) may offer exemption from the first, foundation exams. After about 3 years of work experience, trainees must pass a second set of accreditation exams. Should they wish to practice across Europe, trainee patent attorneys/agents must also take the European qualifying examination after several years of experience.

Here you will find Indian patent office details: Indian_Patent_Office

Becoming a patent lawyer requires yet more training. In the United States, aspiring patent attorneys must supplement their scientific training with a law degree and a state bar exam, in addition to the patent bar exam. 

A patent scientist says: In science, to me it was very black and white -- either the experiments work, or they don’t -- whereas when I started getting into the [patent] profession, I realized that they introduce a shade of grey. It’s not exactly wrong, but neither is it completely correct, so there is always room for argument in any situation! And law suits to deal with!

And there are different types of patents too!

Different types of patent applications exist so that inventors can protect different kinds of inventions. Savvy inventors can utilize the different kinds of patent applications to secure the rights they need to protect their inventions. There are four different patent types (2):

• A utility patent is what most people think of when they think about a patent. It is a long, technical document that teaches the public how to use a new machine, process, or system. The kinds of inventions protected by utility patents are defined by Congress. New technologies like genetic engineering and internet-delivered software are challenging the boundaries of what kinds of inventions can receive utility patent protection.
• A provisional patent goes hand in glove with a utility patent. United States law allows inventors to file a less formal document that proves the inventor was in possession of the invention and had adequately figured out how to make the invention work. Once that is on file, the invention is patent pending. If, however, the inventor fails to file a formal utility patent within a year from filing the provisional patent, he or she will lose this filing date. Any public disclosures made relying on that provisional patent application will now count as public disclosures to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
• A design patent protects an ornamental design on a useful item. The shape of a bottle or the design of a shoe, for example, can be protected by a design patent. The document itself is almost entirely made of pictures or drawings of the design on the useful item. Design patents are notoriously difficult to search simply because there are very few words used in a design patent. In recent years, software companies have used design patents to protect elements of user interfaces and even the shape of touchscreen devices.
• A plant patent is just that: a patent for a plant. Plant patents protect new kinds of plants produced by cuttings or other nonsexual means. Plant patents generally do not cover genetically modified organisms and focus more on conventional horticulture.

The patent you mentioned is only about methods.

In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560 (1995) case, the US supreme court ruled that ...

The experiments showing that an anti-tumor drug inhibited growth of cancerous mouse cells were sufficient for utility, even though the compound had not been tested with human cells.

The court stated that experiments performed by researchers other than the inventor with similar compounds could also, potentially, satisfy the utility requirement. So, in contrast to Brenner, the inventor in In re Brana was not necessarily required to perform experiments, at least not in human cells, to demonstrate utility!

Typically, patent applications claiming new methods of treatment are supported by test results. But it is clear that testing need not be conducted by the inventor. In addition, human trials are not required for a therapeutic invention to be patentable… The US courts ruled that "We have held that results from animal tests or in vitro experiments may be sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement".

In another case, decided by the same court a year after In re ‘318, seemingly lowered the bar set for utility in In re ‘318 and Rasmussen. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC related to a dispute over a patent for the use of Strattera to treat ADHD. No. 2010-1500 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2010). The inventors had no clinical data supporting utility at the time the patent application was filed, although they did perform experiments after the filing of the application confirming utility (which the court found persuasive despite the general bar on adding new matter after filing).

The court stated that experimental data was not required at the time of filing because when an inventor asserts utility a presumption exists that the inventor is correct. This is known as the “Langer” test for utility. The “Langer” test presumes that utility should not be a bar to patentability if a person skilled in the art did not have a good reason to doubt the applicant’s claim to utility.

In Eli Lilly's case, the court believed that the outside studies put forth by the inventor demonstrating Strattera’s effect on brain chemistry were sufficient for the examiner to not have good reason to doubt Eli Lilly’s claim of utility.

In some cases, courts said that proof typically requires experimental results but may, in the rare ones, be accomplished by just analytical reasoning.

While patents serve commercial purpose, science serves fact establishing purpose. Both have vastly different aims.

I didn't find any peer-reviewed papers on DMIT's genuineness.

Even if 'some research' 's conducted on DMIT, it need not be scientifically sound if it is not published in a high quality peer-reviewed journal. If published in a dubious journal, we don't even count it as genuine science.

So with so many ambiguities in patent laws how can just a patent based on methods be considered as evidence for its utility and scientific credibility? And how can a person who is no expert in the subject decide about genuineness of scientific evidence? How can lawyers  argue about the genuine scientific validity? And above all can courts decide what genuine scientific evidence is (6)? Think about these things and come to your own conclusions!

Q: There are patents for Cow Urine. What do you think?

Krishna: Yes. 

Patent US6410059 - Pharmaceutical composition containing cow urine ...

Patent US6896907 - Use of bioactive fraction from cow urine distill...

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7235262B2/en

And this is my explanation...

The patent says…the applicants thought of utilizing cow urine, which is not MICROBICIDAL but when present with a drug or active molecule, enhance its activity and availability (bioenhancers). The present invention was the result of planned experiments to provide a novel method for improving activity and bioavailability of antibiotics, drugs and other molecules using ‘cow urine distillate’ in different formulations.

It is similar to saying methi seeds ‘enhance’ the diabetic drug performance but they don’t actually act as drugs themselves.

THE PAPTENT CLEARLY SAYS gaumutra IS NOT A MEDICINE BUT JUST A BIO-ENHANCER.

OH, YES IN LAB CONDITIONS SEVERAL THINGS HAPPEN WHEN ONLY TWO THINGS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BUT IN ACTUAL COMPLEX HUMAN BODIES DIFFERENT REACTIONS might take place.

Gaumutra (cow-urine) might contain bioenhancers but they also contain several toxins too that the cow’s body is trying to excrete. A distillate is a liquid which is condensed from a vapor during distillation and removes microbes and other substances that are harmful.

The best possible way to use bio-enhancers is to extract them, purify and use them.

Raw ‘gaumutra’ as it is excreted by a cow is harmful. 

These patents are not for medicinal properties,  they are for bio-enhancers. Get that right first.

Read here what an oncologist says about this: Venkatraman Radhakrishnan's answer to Does Gau-mutra cure, or at le...

And know how genuine Indian scientists are criticising this here: 

Indian scientists decry ‘infuriating’ scheme to study benefits of c...

References: 

1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7406186B2/en

2. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-the-different-types-of-...

3. https://www.lotempiolaw.com/2015/02/blog-2/biotechnology-experiments/

4. Allison, J.R. and Mann, R.J., 2007. Disputed Quality of Software Patents, The. Wash. UL Rev., 85, p.297.

5. Barker, David G. (2005). "Troll or no Troll? Policing Patent Usage with an Open Post-grant R.... Duke Law & Technology Review. 9 (11). Archived from the original on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2013.

6. https://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/some-qs-people-...

7. https://atomictherapy.org/homoeopathic-patent/

8. https://patents.justia.com/patents-by-us-classification/434/106

9. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_patent_more_worthy_or_a_good_p...

10. https://support.lens.org/help-resources/patent-facts/3-patents-are-...