Supreme Court unanimously rules that human genes cannot be patented

[JEDI]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/scotus-genes/index.html

The case involves Utah-based company Myriad Genetics, which was sued over its claim of patents relating to two types of biological material that it identified -- BCRA-1 and BCRA-2, whose mutations are linked to increased hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

Since Myriad owns the patent on breast cancer genes, it is the only company that can perform tests for potential abnormalities.

but a a synthetic version of the gene material may be patented


i agree w/the supreme court ruling. its like putting a patent on dog.
but dont understand what a synthetic version of the gene material is?

 

[Nintendesert]

Needs commentary from you!

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/scotus-genes/index.html

The case involves Utah-based company Myriad Genetics, which was sued over its claim of patents relating to two types of biological material that it identified -- BCRA-1 and BCRA-2, whose mutations are linked to increased hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

Since Myriad owns the patent on breast cancer genes, it is the only company that can perform tests for potential abnormalities.

but a a synthetic version of the gene material may be patented


huh?!

HA! Beat you to it. By less than a minute, by the looks of it.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35137709&posted=1#post35137709

 

[Patranus]

Sounds logical.
Naturally occurring genes = public domain.
Created genes using R&D = patent.

Wow. Common sense from the court.

FYI, Myriad Genetics, the company being sued, just hit their 52 week high as soon as this ruling came out.

 

[JEDI]

Sounds logical.
Naturally occurring genes = public domain.
Created genes using R&D = patent.

Wow. Common sense from the court.

FYI, Myriad Genetics, the company being sued, just hit their 52 week high as soon as this ruling came out.

thats odd. why would a court ruling against them lead to higher stock prices for them?

 

[cliftonite]

Great news!

 

[Wreckem]

thats odd. why would a court ruling against them lead to higher stock prices for them?

It was actually a partial loss/partial win.

Natural are not patentable, synthetic(what is most likely to be used in gene therapies) are patentable. Its the correct ruling.

 

[SaurusX]

An intelligent decision. Figuring out how a naturally occuring thing works is not creating it from scratch and hence shouldn't be patentable.

 

[xBiffx]

It was actually a partial loss/partial win.

Natural are not patentable, synthetic(what is most likely to be used in gene therapies) are patentable. Its the correct ruling.

I think it also has to do with the fact that they aren't blocked by using natural occurring genes for other things. This might still be patentable. Not the gene itself, but rather how it is put to use.

This is exactly along the lines of what my industry, the GMO's are involved in a lot of the time. Good news.

 

[colonelciller]

allowing the patenting of cDNA is pretty stupid as well...

it would fall under the *OBVIOUS* clause of patent law... it's too bad the judges are science illiterates... then again most are when it comes to DNA and molecular biology.

ah well

 

[MrColin]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/scotus-genes/index.html

The case involves Utah-based company Myriad Genetics, which was sued over its claim of patents relating to two types of biological material that it identified -- BCRA-1 and BCRA-2, whose mutations are linked to increased hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

Since Myriad owns the patent on breast cancer genes, it is the only company that can perform tests for potential abnormalities.

but a a synthetic version of the gene material may be patented


i agree w/the supreme court ruling. its like putting a patent on dog.
but dont understand what a synthetic version of the gene material is?

The strength of the patent trolls is no match for the power of boobies.

 

[Wreckem]

...