Breaking: Supreme Court rules human genes can't be patented.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rt-gene-breast-ovarian-cancer-patent/2382053/

Justices rule human genes cannot be patented

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a decision with both immediate benefits for some breast and ovarian cancer patients and long-lasting repercussions for biotechnology research.

The decision represents a victory for cancer patients, researchers and geneticists who claimed that a single company's patent raised costs, restricted research and sometimes forced women to have breasts or ovaries removed without sufficient facts or second opinions.

But the court held out a lifeline to Myriad Genetics, the company with an exclusive patent on the isolated form of genes that can foretell an increased genetic risk of cancer. The justices said it can patent a type of DNA that goes beyond extracting the genes from the body.

The decision was based on past patent cases before the high court in which the justices ruled that forces of nature, as opposed to products of invention, are not patent-eligible.

Since 1984, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted more than 40,000 patents tied to genetic material. Armed with those patents, Myriad has tested more than 1 million women since the late 1990s for mutations that often lead to breast and ovarian cancer.

Most women who want testing must pay its price — $3,340 for the breast cancer analysis and $700 for an additional test that picks up a genetic link in about 10% of women who test negative the first time. Myriad officials say about 95% of its patients receive insurance coverage, often without co-payments, so that most patients pay only about $100.

Myriad and a broad array of industry trade groups argued that without patent protection, research and development would dry up. Doctors, geneticists, women's health groups and cancer patients contended that competition would lower prices, improve outcomes and lead to more discoveries.




I pretty much agree with this.
 
Last edited:

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Glad to hear this.

Disagree with the notion that research will dry up, also.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
It's more complicated than that. While they obviously shouldn't be patenting DNA, they should be able to patent their process for identifying specific genes.
 

Leymenaide

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
753
368
136
Wow
I wounder if some plant patents can be invalidated with this?

The decision was based on past patent cases before the high court in which the justices ruled that forces of nature, as opposed to products of invention, are not patent-eligible.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
what was the vote breakdown?



acaagatgcc attgtccccc ggcctcctgc tgctgctgct ctccggggcc acggccaccg ctgccctgcc cctggagggt ggccccaccg gccgagacag cgagcatatg caggaagcgg caggaataag gaaaagcagc ctcctgactt tcctcgcttg gtggtttgag tggacctccc
aggccagtgc cgggcccctc ataggagagg aagctcggga ggtggccagg cggcaggaag ccagcaatcc gcgcgccggg acagaatgcc ctgcaggaac ttcttctgga agaccttctc ctcctgcaaa taaaacctca cccatgaatg ctcacgcaag
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
acaagatgcc attgtccccc ggcctcctgc tgctgctgct ctccggggcc acggccaccg ctgccctgcc cctggagggt ggccccaccg gccgagacag cgagcatatg caggaagcgg caggaataag gaaaagcagc ctcctgactt tcctcgcttg gtggtttgag tggacctccc
aggccagtgc cgggcccctc ataggagagg aagctcggga ggtggccagg cggcaggaag ccagcaatcc gcgcgccggg acagaatgcc ctgcaggaac ttcttctgga agaccttctc ctcctgcaaa taaaacctca cccatgaatg ctcacgcaag

You made a funny. :eek:
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,176
1,816
126
To oversimplify, it seems in a nutshell, patents of natural genes would be invalid, but you can still patent synthetic genes.

Myriad, you suck. Fortunately, up here in Canada, Myriad's gene "patents" could be ignored with impunity. There has been no requirement to use Myriad for this stuff.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Said Chief Justice Roberts about the decision "now everyone can wear whatever type jeans they like. I prefer Levis'"

I'm not quite sure the Supreme Court really gets modern science.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,916
4,959
136
Nothing like the supreme court to infringe on our constitutionally guaranteed right to patent our genes.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Much ado about nothing. The way the ruling is worded, Myriad still essentially holds BRCA1 & 2 exclusively hostage. Might as well be patented.

Worse yet, the ruling conspicuously uses the term "Human Gene", meaning Monsanto et'al are completely free to continue with their GMO patent shenanigans at their leisure.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Much ado about nothing. The way the ruling is worded, Myriad still essentially holds BRCA1 & 2 exclusively hostage. Might as well be patented.

Worse yet, the ruling conspicuously uses the term "Human Gene", meaning Monsanto et'al are completely free to continue with their GMO patent shenanigans at their leisure.

I think even if it applied to all species, Monsanto would still be safe. I think their patents are on modified plants, not just the gene itself.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
So let me get this straight...you can isolate it, you can sequence it, and you can probably PCR it, but you can't remove the introns?


It's very unclear to me what exactly their patent restricts in light of this ruling.
 
Last edited:

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,176
1,816
126
So let me get this straight...you can isolate it, you can sequence it, and you can probably PCR it, but you can't remove the introns?

What if you just reverse-transcribe it from RNA instead?

It's very unclear to me what exactly their patent restricts in light of this ruling.
If you reverse transcribe it from the RNA, you've created a cDNA, with the introns removed. Unfortunately, Myriad still has these patented.

If there are no introns at all in the sequence, then a company can't patent the cDNA, but if you need remove the introns, then a company can patent the cDNA.

---

Yes, the decision was unanimous, but personally that suggests to me that the existing laws in the US are stupid. I don't think cDNAs should be patentable either, unless they're from completely synthetic genes that do not occur in nature. But in that context, I'm thinking that cDNA would be irrelevant then, because you'd simply patent the gene in the first place.

But like I said, in Canada we don't have this nonsense. BRCA and DNA mismatch repair testing can be done by any institution (as long as they do it properly).
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
Much ado about nothing. The way the ruling is worded, Myriad still essentially holds BRCA1 & 2 exclusively hostage. Might as well be patented.

Worse yet, the ruling conspicuously uses the term "Human Gene", meaning Monsanto et'al are completely free to continue with their GMO patent shenanigans at their leisure.

Not really. They allow Myriad to patent the process of making cDNA (as they should), but do not stop others from isolating the BRCA genes in other ways.

The ruling is also not specific to human genes, saying the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 were invalid because the genes were a "product of nature."

It is likely, though, that the court will continue to allow patenting of genetic engineering products, suggesting that the genome of the product plant is new. In other words, Monsanto can't patent the BT gene and all its uses, but they can patent their varieties of BT corn.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,176
1,816
126
Not really. They allow Myriad to patent the process of making cDNA (as they should), but do not stop others from isolating the BRCA genes in other ways.
The actual cDNA can still be patented, which is the main problem. What's even worse, AFAIK, Myriad just used existing techniques for developing that cDNA.