TR Editors' blog

Gene Patents Ruled Invalid

In a surprise ruling, Myriad's controversial patents on breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes are struck down.

Emily Singer 03/30/2010

  • 6 Comments

A federal court has ruled that key patents held by Myriad Genetics, a diagnostics company based in Salt Lake City, UT, on the BRCA 1 and 2 genes are invalid. Specific mutations in these genes are responsible for the majority of hereditary forms of breast and ovarian cancers, and many women with a family history of these cancers undergo screening to help them make medical decisions around preventing the disease.

The suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), patients and medical groups, argued that the patents restricted research and patients' access to healthcare. Myriad's critics have long argued that they give the company a monopoly over this type of genetic screening, allowing it to keep prices high--the test costs more than $3000, despite continual decreases in the cost of genomic analysis tools--and preventing women from seeking confirmatory tests from other sources.

According to a statement from the ACLU, "The precedent-setting ruling marks the first time a court has found patents on genes unlawful and calls into question the validity of patents now held on approximately 2000 human genes." That amounts to about 20 percent of human genes, including those associated with Alzheimer's disease, colon cancer, asthma and other illnesses. "Because the ACLU's lawsuit challenges the whole notion of gene patenting, its outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond the patents on the BRCA genes."

Dan Vorhaus at the Genomics Law Report discusses the ruling in more detail:

Judge Sweet's ruling invalidates both Myriad's composition of matter claims (its patents on isolated DNA sequences to all or a portion of the breast cancer genes) and its method claims (those patent claims that relate to analyzing or comparing isolated DNA sequences in order to detect mutations in a patient's BRCA1/2 genes that might cause breast cancer).

The overall tone of the Court's ruling is best captured by this passage (from page 135):

The identification of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequences is unquestionably a valuable scientific achievement for which Myriad deserves recognition, but that is not the same as concluding that it is something for which they are entitled to a patent.

The ruling follows decades of debate over gene patenting. An article in the New York Times points out that such patents "have been granted for decades; the Supreme Court upheld patents on living organisms in 1980," an argument Myriad made when asking the court to dismiss the case. The company is expected to appeal the decision

Many patent experts were surprised by the court's decision and predict it will have a negative impact on young start-ups in the biotech industry. It's not yet clear how it will affect the market for BRCA screening. "For the moment, however, we do not foresee this decision producing any radical changes in commercial, clinical or other activity surrounding Myriad's BRCA patents, or gene patents more broadly," Vorhaus wrote in his post.

In the broader policy debate surrounding gene and biotechnology patents, however, this decision is the latest, unmistakable shot across the bow of gene patent holders, particularly those such as Myriad Genetics that have developed businesses around patent-protected genetic tests supported by exclusive rights in underlying gene patents.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

sjmcm3

2 Comments

  • 685 Days Ago
  • 03/31/2010

Gene Patents Ruled Invalid

Bravo!  About time.  Next, let's look again at whether it's proper to patent software, which is merely the reduction of a mental process.

Reply

Mapou

357 Comments

  • 685 Days Ago
  • 03/31/2010

No Restrictions

Excellent. There should be no restrictions at all on any health-related product or procedure. A new way must be found to compensate research organizations that does not impede either progress or treatment. People should not have to pay a hundred dollars for a pill that cost a few pennies to manufacture.

Health is an especially sensitive area but the entire intellectual property systems used in most countries must be overhauled to emphasize market freedom. There must be an effective and fair way to compensate innovators that does not require the erection of artificial barriers in the marketplace. Barriers only promote unjust monopolies and disproportionate inequalities.

Reply

StupidPeasant

98 Comments

  • 685 Days Ago
  • 03/31/2010

Another rock

A new rock in the stream changes the flow forever.
We will never know what is not discovered or not invented when factors affecting human motivation are changed.
The greed to take other people's ideas may be greater than the greed to profit from thinking of the idea to start with.

Reply

gabrielg01

450 Comments

  • 685 Days Ago
  • 03/31/2010

The BRCA gene family was discovered in an academic lab.

For your information, the BRCA1 gene was discovered in an academic lab (at Berkeley), funded by tax payers' money. Dr. Mary Claire King made the initial discovery, and after that the other BRCA genes were also identified.

Companies jumped into the fray, and patented things, but mostly on legal technicalities. They were gaming the legal system. These companies provided nothing of real value to society. They are basically biotech patent trolls.

Dr. Mary Claire King is now at the University of Washington.

Reply

Paul123

1 Comment

  • 684 Days Ago
  • 04/01/2010

Some Background

There's a fascinating take on this at the Skeptic's Health Journal, sort of provides some of the background to the debate, if interested you can read on it here, http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

Reply

zubair279

1 Comment

  • 448 Days Ago
  • 11/23/2010

Gene patent

That was very informative and well written. Mentioned below is an article on gene patent debate:
"The amicus brief submitted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Breast Cancer Gene patent appeal before the Federal Circuit has drawn great attention during the last week. A US District Court had earlier rejected isolated gene sequence claims in Myriad's patent stating that they do not satisfy the patentable subject matter requirement because they are products of nature. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Court, Myriad appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief before the Federal Circuit stating that the District Court's opinion was right with respect to genomic DNA sequences. As the DOJ's opinion is very persuasive, it has once again brought the gene patent debate to life.

The DOJ has clearly pointed out in its brief that cDNA sequences, vectors, recombinant plasmids and chimeric proteins are patentable but the genomic DNA sequence, which exists in human body is not patentable. As per DOJ, merely isolating the exact sequence as it exists in the body does not merit patent protection as it amounts to product of nature. The DOJ has in its brief logically pointed out that isolation of such a sequence and identifying the fact that it encodes a protein that causes breast cancer, which is a natural relationship, is not sufficient to make the sequence patentable."......read more at http://www.patentpill.com/2010/11/gene-patent-debate-is-alive-again.html

Reply

About

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Subscribe to the TR Editors' blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement