Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented

steddyeddy

Brilliant news from the New York Times today. The supreme court ruled that human genes (Such as the cancer probability enhancing genes this company patented) cannot legally be patented! Genes which are regions of DNA which code for a protein shouldn't be the sole property of a company. They are chemical formulas so to speak but I think companies holding rights over disease causing genes could severely limit our ability to research and cure diseases.

A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous court. But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature is an invention eligible for patent protection.
The case concerned patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.
The central question for the justices in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, was whether isolated genes are products of nature that may not be patented or human-made inventions eligible for patent protection.
The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated.
The courts ruling will shape the course of scientific research and medical testing, and it may alter the willingness of businesses to invest in the expensive work of isolating and understanding genetic material.

lkionm

*nods head* I fully understand

ScumLord

But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature is an invention eligible for patent protection.

What would happen if some company made a gene that they thought was unique but we later found the same gene in nature? Would that invalidate their patent?

Ten of Swords

ScumLord wrote: »

What would happen if some company made a gene that they thought was unique but we later found the same gene in nature? Would that invalidate their patent?

Research into XNA, synthetic DNA, has been accelerating in recent years but it currently still needs natural DNA as part of the manufacturing process - once this need has been ironed out and it's entirely artificial the argument to try and patent natural genes should be greatly reduced anyway.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-19/artificial-dna-can-replicate-in-lab-researchers-find.html

TheBegotten

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its only right that companies cannot patent Gods work.

THERE IS NO GOD AND NO REASON FOR A GOD AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A HERETIC. I MEAN DELUDED.

Phill Ewinn

TheBegotten wrote: »

THERE IS NO GOD AND NO REASON FOR A GOD AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A HERETIC. I MEAN DELUDED.

Swear on that?

donvito99

*points at testicles*

Patent pending.

nmop_apisdn

steddyeddy wrote: »

Brilliant news from the New York Times today.

http://io9.com/u-s-supreme-court-says-human-genes-cant-be-patented-513210800

Critics are already saying Justice Clarence Thomas made the wrong decision to not exclude cDNA from patentability. Writing in Forbes, Daniel Fisher explains:

Critics say even the edited sequences are directly analogous to naturally occurring DNA. “That may be so,” Thomas wrote, “but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made.”

[Brenda] Jarrell, who has a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of California in addition to a Harvard Law degree, said Thomas is wrong. Not only do researchers make cDNA with naturally occurring tools, but the exact same process can occur naturally in the body.

“It’s not actually correct to say cDNA is not a product of nature,” she said. “There’s nothing more inventive about making cDNA than isolating DNA.”

The DNA/cDNA distinction also could provide grist for future litigation, since cDNA is a gene sequence consisting only of exons, or nucleotides that code for amino acids.

“What if you took that same cDNA sequence and added non-functional introns?” asked Dalila Argaez Wendlandt, a partner with Ropes & Gray. Would that allow for a successful end-run around the patent?

This will likely be a big deal in the future with the advent of advanced gene therapies and the injection of novel, synthetic genes into our DNA. So we're not out of the woods yet; the day is coming when companies will own the DNA contained within your body.

Good, but not near good enough.


Software patents finally look like they're heading in the right direction.

Cody Pomeray

I read someone say "wise decision, on balance" on twitter today, and i genuinely thought he was being sarcastic until i saw there was actually a debate about this.

patenting DNA segments? really?

WoollyRedHat

They'll try to put a price on everythimg eh... nothing is sacred.

Lenin Skynard

TheBegotten wrote: »

THERE IS NO GOD AND NO REASON FOR A GOD AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A HERETIC. I MEAN DELUDED.

Lovin' your neckbeard. Do you have a very angry youtube channel that I can subscribe to?

nmop_apisdn

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I read someone say "wise decision, on balance" on twitter today, and i genuinely thought he was being sarcastic until i saw there was actually a debate about this.

patenting DNA segments? really?

It's 20 year patents and they are actually just about to run out. Patented in the 90s. Myriad has been charging women $4000 if they wanted to have the test to see if they carried the bad genes and if it was positive next step was a retest, another $4000.:rolleyes:

Patent lawyers would simply be more careful in how they worded patent applications in future, said one.

“This decision will be comforting for a lot of companies because the court went out of its way to say that sometimes DNA is patentable,” said Tom Engellenner, a patent attorney at Pepper Hamilton. “Patent attorneys will respond by avoiding the type of language that stuck in the court’s throat.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/025fb4bc-d43d-11e2-8639-00144feab7de.html#axzz2W9vGEdUW
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/clarence_thomas_opinion_on_myriad_genetics_the_supreme_court_ruled_unanimously.html

Small biotech companies that have gene breakthroughs are more likely to have limited patent protection, and the main protection on the gene itself has now vanished.

Large companies can now target successful developments and use their larger R&D budgets to find alternative ways to isolate, process, use and deliver similar results. In essence, they have a chance to become de facto genetic drug manufacturers without being stymied by the one patent they might not be able to get around.

May even have helped get rid of the competition.

Overheal

Well this all comes as a relief, since China pays such reverence to thinks like Patents

If it were Ireland, they probably would have won the case :rolleyes:

rabjoshu

Is this the Supreme Court or a court in some foreign country?

SEPT 23 1989

Deleted User wrote: »

If it were Ireland, they probably would have won the case :rolleyes:

and awarded compensation and an apology from Edna