Enriching Life Through Innovative Ideas SM

SUPREME COURT DENIES PATENT FOR HUMAN GENES

In a unanimous ruling on June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that human genes are not patentable…or at least not natural human genes. Although all nine Justices said that naturally occurring isolated biological material is not patentable, their ruling was still a compromise by allowing for the possibility of a patent on the synthetic version of the gene material.

genetherapyjon-300x225.jpg

In 2009, a coalition of researchers, genetic counselors, cancer survivors, breast cancer support groups and scientific associations filed suit against Myriad Genetics, a Utah biotechnology company, challenging the company’s patent of genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad discovered and isolated the two genes, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, which are highly associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Myriad patented its discovery, allowing the company a monopoly over the use, research, diagnostics and treatment of the genes. Myriad was also the only company that could perform tests for potential abnormalities. In April 2013, the Supreme Court began the trial on whether researchers and scientists are able to claim human DNA as their intellectual property.

Specifically, the issue focused on whether “products of nature” can be treated the same as “human-made” inventions in order for the individuals and companies who have isolated the specific genes to have the exclusive intellectual property rights to these genes.

The Supreme Court found that Myriad did not create or invent anything for purposes of patent law. “Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes,” Justice Clarence Thomas said in writing for the Court. “[Myriad] found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention,” Justice Thomas further clarified.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court also supported the Obama administration position that although DNA is not patentable by itself, Complementary DNA, or “cDNA” can be. Complementary DNA is artificially synthesized from the genetic template and engineered to produce gene clones. Justice Thomas claimed, “cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments.”

This compromised ruling does not come as a shock to the public since the Justices ave previously expressed their hesitancy to allow for patents on human genes and the profound impact it would have on pharmaceuticals and genetically modified crops. However, one surprise in the ruling was that all but one Justice signed off on the ruling.

Instead, Justice Anton Scalia wrote a separate opinion agreeing with all parts of the opinion except Part I-A, the paragraph that describes what genes are, what they do and how they’re created. Scalia wrote, “I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief.”

Regardless of Scalia’s understanding or belief of genes, this ruling has already had a major impact on the medical community. Immediately after the ruling, at least three companies and two university labs said that they would now begin offering genetic testing in the field of breast cancer. Along with companies having the ability to offer genetic testing, the costs of these tests are also expected to fall for patients.

Dr. Harry Ostrer, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center in New York said, “I’m thrilled. We can offer BRCA 1 and 2 testing to low-income women without concerns about how it will be paid for.” Furthermore, scientists will be able to research the BRCA genes without fear of being sued.

Even Myriad found solace in the ruling. Peter D. Meldrum, president and chief executive officer of Myriad, said the company believed the court “appropriately upheld our claims on cDNA.” He also stated that the ruling “underscored the patent eligibility of our method claims, ensuring strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward.”

FindLaw Network

What Our Clients Say

Starting a new business can be a bit scary. Aside from worries of failure, there’s also the hassle of making sure all legal paperwork are properly filed. I reached out to Mr. Wang (Tommy) because of his excellent reviews and reputation and I am so glad I did. He was thorough and meticulous in answering all of my concerns and took time to find out special laws and policies regarding the kind of business I am starting. I could focus on the daily practical side of starting my new office without worry because I felt Tommy was reliable and took my case seriously. My business is opened and it’s all been a smooth start because of Tommy’s help. I have plans to start another business venture in the next few years and I already know I’ll be coming back to Wang IP Law.

The Shindig W.

I came to Tommy for help reviewing a licensing agreement I had secured with a well-known manufacturer. Tommy made sure I understood all the details in the contract and he negotiated with the company to improve my side of the deal. I mentioned to Tommy at my first consultation that we were looking to expand throughout the US and were investing a lot of money to make a big entrance into the market. I did not think I would have my store open so soon but Tommy also has connections with the local area and realtors to help me secure the location for my first store in the Los Angeles area. Tommy works a lot with the local businesses and he understands how to transition from the Asian market to US market. Within 8 months my store was open for business and fully operating. I must recommend Tommy to any business owners looking for help with contracts and improving their side of the deal. Tommy has the knowledge and experience to make sure there is a smooth process to open for business here, and make sure that your company is set up for success.

LI H.

I think Tommy and his team by far considered the best people to work with in my 16 business years. Beside quick responses to all my inquiries, they also done things right and providing very professional solutions. I’m highly recommending Tommy and his firm to all business owners.

Calvin C.

I have been working on my Utility Patent for almost 4 years. I have hired and fired two very reputable IP firms because with all their expertise and reputation for being some of the top firms in IP Law, I felt a lack of connection and care in my product, time and financial investment. Then I found Tommy and his team. Tommy does not waste time. He and his team are professional and extremely thorough. After 4 years, I finally found a legal team that I felt spent the time to really understand the components of my utility patent. Tommy also very mindful of cost and how and where my money would be better spent. I really feel I am in great hands with Tommy and his team. They have been patient with my revisions. And most importantly, they made me feel that they fully understood the importance this patent is to me. It has been a great and comforting pleasure working with Tommy.

G.L.

Read All