
Patent application by USC: Fasting condition as dietary treatment of diabetes - sjcsjc
https://www.google.com/patents/US20150004280
======
josaka
This issued as US patent 9,386,790, so it's not just an application.

Most can keep fasting intermittently without infringing at least claim 1,
typically the broadest claim. If you don't have (and know you have)
"pancreatic beta cell destruction," you don't infringe. Even then, if you only
cut to 51% of your normal intake or more, you don't infringe. Even then, if
you restrict sugar but not protein, you don't infringe. Even then, if your re-
feed at greater than 100% of your normal diet (which is common), you don't
infringe.

~~~
theorique
Could a private citizen following a dietary protocol actually be sued for
infringement of a patent? Seems absurd, not to mention highly unenforceable.

~~~
bdowling
For a claim to be literally infringed, every element of the claim must be
present in the allegedly infringing use. Since the first element of the first
claim is "identifying a subject exhibiting symptoms...", that element would
need to be present in the private citizen's use as well. A single private
citizen following a dietary protocol is probably not "identifying a subject
exhibiting symptoms..."

Further, the language "administering multiple cycles of a diet protocol to the
subject" seems to imply that multiple persons are needed in order to carry out
this method, so it could be argued that a single private citizen could not
infringe the claim by himself in any circumstances.

The same reasoning applies to all of the other claims since all of the claims
as issued depend from claim 1 or from claims 16, 25, or 28, which have similar
limiting language.

------
wutusmuck
Valter D. Longo and Chia-Wei Cheng are the "inventors". This is a blatant
attempt at taking advantage of the indifference of the uspo and the ignorance
of the public to what is going on at the uspo. This is despicable and I think
we as somewhat more informed participants in this little thing called
civilization need to do more to have our voices heard and vilify those who
keep taking advantage of society. This includes those that at the uspo that
are actually reading these patents and issuing them. Can anyone find out who
they are?

On another note, I wonder if there is any form of moral hazard in the uspo
office, possibly in the form of workers being incentivized to issue patents,
or workers from certain companies going to work for patent offices that are
sought out by those companies for their patents. Maybe offices or workers are
granting patents for the sake of being able to show a high number of patents
issued at the end of the year. Maybe this makes them look good when it comes
time for performance review. idk. I do know that something needs to change, a
change that hopefully adds transparency and holds people responsible. Should
we write our congress representatives? (lol)

edit: wording, punctuation, hoopla

~~~
iplaw
This post shows that you, too, are a member of "the public" which is ignorant
"to what is going on at the uspo." It's the USPTO, by the way.

    
    
      Can anyone find out who they are?
    

Of course you can. You can find the examiner who reviewed this patent, you can
find the references cited in the rejection, which precipitated the amendments
to the claims. You can even find his phone number and email address.

    
    
      I wonder if there is any form of moral hazard in the uspo office,
      possibly in the form of workers being incentivized to issue patents
    

They are incentivized to reject applications multiple times, to force an RCE,
etc. via a point-based performance metric. Prosecuting a patent is not a walk
in the park. Rejections get you points. Allowances do not get you points.

    
    
      Maybe offices or workers are granting patents for the sake of being
      able to show a high number of patents issued at the end of the year.
    

This shot in the dark is totally baseless, and incorrect.

    
    
      I do know that something needs to change, a change that
      hopefully adds transparency and holds people responsible.
    

How transparent do you want it? Do you want every office action made public?
Do you want all communication between the examiner and the applicant to be
made public? Do you want all responses to the rejections and references
asserted as prior art for purposes of anticipation (novelty) or obviousness
(inventive step) to be listed out for the entire world to see?

OH WAIT. IT ALREADY IS.

~~~
wutusmuck
> This post shows that you, too, are a member of "the public" which is
> ignorant "to what is going on at the uspo." It's the USPTO, by the way.

Thanks for ignoring the qualifier I used, how convenient for your own
accusation.

> You can even find his phone number and email address.

Glad to hear this, but after a quick glance at the document I still cant find
it. I'll try again.

> They are incentivized to reject applications multiple times

How? A source would be nice but the explanation will suffice.

> This shot in the dark is totally baseless, and incorrect

Could be incorrect, therefor the qualifier, again...

>OH WAIT. IT ALREADY IS

Where? Thanks for correctly informing another citizen. Your civility was much
appreciated.

Also, I would like to reiterate my call for responsibility. Although you said
the examiners and applicants all known, I still dont think they are held
accountable enough for the bad patents that get issued.

------
iplaw
Two important considerations:

1\. This link is to the as-filed application. The recited claims are not what
ultimately issued. Linking to the application rather than the granted patent
is dubious.
[https://www.google.com/patents/US9386790](https://www.google.com/patents/US9386790)

2\. A patent practitioner will utilize method claims in order to apply
something known in the art, such as general fasting, in a new and novel
manner. This does NOT cover plain-ole fasting. You can fast without violating
this patent. What you cannot do without a license to the patent is perform the
method in its entirety.

The independent claim recites:

    
    
      1. A method of treating a symptom of diabetes, the method comprising:
    
        identifying a subject exhibiting symptoms caused by pancreatic beta cell destruction,
        the subject having a normal caloric intake; and
    
        administering multiple cycles of a diet protocol to the subject wherein a fasting
        mimicking diet is provided for a first time period and a re-feeding diet is provided
        for a second time period, the fasting mimicking diet providing less than about
        50% of the normal caloric intake of the subject with both protein restriction and
        sugar restriction and the re-feeding diet providing 60-100 percent of the normal
        caloric intake of the subject, depending on a need to lose weight wherein the first
        time period is from 2 days to 6 days and the second time period is from 7 days to 85 days.
    

The take-aways form the claim language are:

A. This is a method of treating a symptom of diabetes. In order to infringe,
you must be treating diabetes by performing the method.

B. You must actively identify a subject exhibiting symptoms caused by
pancreatic beta cell destruction, and the subject must have a normal caloric
intake. If you are an individual who is fasting to treat your diabetes, you
don't infringe by performing this method. You did not identify a subject
exhibiting symptoms caused by pancreatic beta cell destruction. You are merely
fasting.

C. You must administer multiple cycles of this fasting and refeeding, within
the exact caloric-intake ranges required by the claim, and within the exact
time frame required by the claim.

TL;DR: It's toothless for all except treatment centers which diagnose and
identify this "subject exhibiting symptoms caused by pancreatic beta cell
destruction" which could potentially prescribe this very specific dietary
regime to "treat a symptom of diabetes."

~~~
TaylorAlexander
I appreciate your informative explanation. I think it's important that we have
the facts when discussing this.

I will say that you've sort of missed what I think is the important part:

We as a society have decided that it's acceptable to legally bar medical
practitioners from performing life saving treatment of sick individuals.

The only explanations I've heard for why that might not be crazy has
unfortunately been simple and hand-wavey. Specifically I've heard that patents
protect innovators, and the idea is that protecting innovators by
intentionally granting them a limited monopoly on the use of their invention
will create a society more likely to produce new innovations. The idea is that
despite clear negatives, patents offer a net benefit to society.

The problem is I can easily imagine scenarios for either side of that
argument, but I've never heard a comprehensive argument in favor of the
current way of doing things. I also can't help but notice that patents often
protect the establishment by granting the wealthy more monopoly power. Given
that the legal system is in many ways captured by the wealthy establishment, I
question whether the patent system continues to exist because it is truly
beneficial to all or because it benefits the elite that also extert
significant power over the legal system.

If the latter were true, then it could also be said that patents are another
example of the establishment hurting the masses for their own gain. And in
this case (again, as you pointed out the practical effect of this example may
be small), the patent system is creating a risky legal situation for those who
would try to provide medical care for sick members of our society.

As an anecdote, 3D printers were $30k until several major patents expired.
Then small companies formed and in less than 10 years we created excellent 3D
printers that cost $329 (I just bought one of those).

I can't help but wonder what the cumulative effect of artificial monopolies is
on our society. Because it's invisible it's hard to calculate, but it's clear
to me the effect is large.

I'm open to any insight into these matters. My plan is to promote the
voluntary open sourcing of engineered works, but I'd sure love to stop
supporting the patent system in the first place (I think).

~~~
bdowling
I think you've identified the key issue: "What patent policy is in the best
interests of society?" In granting monopoly rights to inventors, we
incentivize innovation and society gets the benefit of new and useful
inventions that might not have otherwise occurred as soon. On the other hand,
society pays a higher price than it would if anyone were allowed to copy those
inventions and distribute the benefits in the most economically efficient way.

There are various safeguards in the law that make this trade more appealing to
the public. Since the monopoly rights are so strong (there is no "fair use",
for example), there is a high level of scrutiny before granting them. And
there are high standards that must be met ("subject-matter eligibility",
"novelty", "non-obviousness", "definiteness", "enablement"). And even after a
patent is granted, it is contestable (but, litigation is expensive). The big
safeguard is that patents are limited to a term of 20 years (in the U.S.) and
after that the invention is dedicated to the public.

I am pretty sure that the 20 year term is non-ideal. For some types of
inventions (e.g., those requiring only a small investment of time or money to
innovate) society may be granting inventors too long of a term. For other
types of inventions, the term may be too short (e.g., where an innovation
required a huge amount of investment). As you pointed out, the effects on
society are hard to calculate.

Because the rules are "one size fits all", I am pretty sure we don't have an
ideal system. However, I don't know if adding more rules would make the system
better or worse. At least interested parties can petition for changes either
through the courts or through the legislatures.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
So I'm not really interested in adding more rules. If anything I think shorter
patent terms would be worth checking out. 5-10 years maybe.

------
apathy
Not just diabetes, it appears to enhance the efficacy (such as it is) of
cytotoxic chemotherapy as well.

Not sure how someone would actually file an infringement lawsuit for not
eating, though. This therapy has a little tiny bit of prior art (e.g. several
hundred million years).

Patent applications and prosecutions are difficult, much more difficult than I
think most realize. Try it yourself (be sure to have _at least_ a spare $13000
lying around) and come back in a year or so with your scars, if you're one of
the folks randomly sniping about the process. It's far, far, far from perfect;
but it evolves (see for example _Myriad_ , _Prometheus_ , and _Alice_ for
important recent cases) and the worst mistakes _do_ get corrected.

JMHO

~~~
ThrustVectoring
They wouldn't file infringement suits for not eating. They'd file them against
people who build a business out of controlling the diet of diabetic patients
in this particular way. And given that it's been studied, health insurance
companies are willing to pay for diabetic patients to have their diet
controlled in this particular way.

IMO, it's not an attempt to monopolize the results of the research. Rather,
it's an attempt to monopolize extracting money out of health insurance
companies that are only willing to pay for proven treatments.

~~~
brazzledazzle
It's probably my ignorance and preconceived notions showing but this seems so
bizarre when contrasted with something like medication. If patenting methods
is possible could I patent a particular type of high intensity interval
training?

------
teuobk
The patent ended up being issued:
[https://www.google.com/patents/US9386790](https://www.google.com/patents/US9386790)

------
shmerl
How can diet be patented to begin with? Can anyone patent human behaviors? It
doesn't make any sense.

~~~
a3n
Not a patent dude, and I just skimmed. The things that stood out to me were
"method of identifying," which is not just the diet, but knowing you have beta
cell damage, i.e. "the dude has diabetes." And also, a list of nutrients
seemed relevant.

Overall though ... WTF?

------
aurizon
Before insulin was discovered, all manner of restricted diets were tried - all
they did was postpone the inevitable. A detailed search of prior art from 1800
should kick this application to the curb.

------
samfisher83
[http://centennial.rucares.org/index.php?page=Dietary_Therapy...](http://centennial.rucares.org/index.php?page=Dietary_Therapy_Diabetes)

Starvation is the way they used to treat the disease in the early part of the
twentieth century.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Madison_Allen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Madison_Allen)

Allen was not the first person to recommend treatment of diabetes by diet; as
Ramachandran and Viswanathan (1998) point out, dietary treatment of diabetes
mellitus was used in ancient Egypt as long ago as 3,500 B.C., and was being
used in India about 2,500 years ago. These authors note that in the eighteenth
century, John Rollo had observed that glycosuria in diabetics could be reduced
if sufferers of diabetes mellitus reduced the quantity of their food consumed.
However, Allen became famous in his own day for his recommendations, and Allen
and his co-workers published their work on the diabetic diet in 1919, in a
work entitled "Total Dietary Regulation in the Treatment of Diabetes". Today,
however, diabetologists would take quite different views on this subject to
those promoted by Allen. Indeed, Joslin, in 1922, suggested different diet
recommendations to those of Allen, suggesting a reduction of fat rather than
carbohydrate, with the overall goal of reduction in calorie intake (Hockaday,
1981). Allen has been named as one of the two leading diabetologists, along
with Elliott P. Joslin, in the period 1910 to 1920.

Apparently it was used way before that period as well.

------
danm07
Is it just me or is fasting as an intellectual property a ludicrous idea?

------
DrScump
More on FMD:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wellbeing/diet/why-weve-all-
been-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wellbeing/diet/why-weve-all-been-doing-
the-fast-diet-wrong/)

[https://thequantifiedbody.net/fast-mimicking-
diet/](https://thequantifiedbody.net/fast-mimicking-diet/)

------
bcheung
What's the point of this patent?

Stay away from food and insulin resistance goes down. Duh. Everyone knows
this.

And you can't exactly go around sending people cease and desist letters saying
"You're not eating, you're violating our patent."

What's the incentive to even file this?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Health insurance companies will pay for proven-effective diabetes treatments.
This prevents competitors from free-riding on the effectiveness proof of this
diabetes treatment to charge money to health insurance companies.

------
PaulHoule
It doesn't seem too different from the Atkins diet. Bodybuilders do all kinds
of cycled carbohydrate restriction although they don't usually lowball their
protein intake.

------
anpk
Does that mean people can't fast without violating the patent?

How is that going to be enforced especially considering fasting is part of
Islam, Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism?

~~~
jasonkostempski
If I'm not mistaken, you can make/do a patented thing as an individual all you
want, you just can't commercialize it.

~~~
hanginghyena
That seems very anti-competitive. So basically, if fasting is a free treatment
for diabetes, you can't promote it without paying these guys a royalty?
Boooooo

~~~
ThrustVectoring
You can probably promote it and they won't care. They will care if you run a
thing that you charge health insurance companies for.

~~~
hanginghyena
Right but that's where this gets ridiculous.

Telling a patient to fast is basically a clinical practice. Almost like
checking blood pressure. No actual supplies needed, just behavioral
counseling.

By the same logic, could I patent checking blood pressure?

------
katkattac
This is only an application, not granted (yet).

I think that "method" patents don't get enough scrutiny by the public. If you
read claim one, what they are preventing is: anyone identifying someone with
diabetes and then putting that person on a calorie restricted diet.

It's not clear to me why the government should grant a monopoly on this
technique, even from a theoretical standpoint.

~~~
iplaw
It granted, indeed. Albeit with a slightly narrower claim scope. See my
analysis of the issued independent claim.

------
openclosed
Someone, anyone... please patent a process to invalidate patents like these.

------
duaneb
What does this even mean as a patent? What is this protecting?

------
andrewclunn
"Your honor, by his own admission this man hasn't eaten in days. He owes me
money!"

