Posted on 06/13/2013 12:35:25 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that human genes isolated from the body cant be patented, a victory for doctors and patients who argued that such patents interfere with scientific research and the practice of medicine.
The court was handing down one of its most significant rulings in the age of molecular medicine, deciding who may own the fundamental building blocks of life.
The case involved Myriad Genetics Inc., which holds patents related to two genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, that can indicate whether a woman has a heightened risk of developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the genes Myriad isolated are products of nature, which arent eligible for patents.
Myriad did not create anything, Justice Thomas wrote in an 18-page opinion. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.
Even if a discovery is brilliant or groundbreaking, that doesnt necessarily mean its patentable, the court said.
However, the ruling wasnt a complete loss for Myriad. The court said that DNA molecules synthesized in a laboratory were eligible for patent protection. Myriads share price initially surged as much as 11% on the news but later fell back near the previous days close.
The court adopted the position advanced by the Obama administration, which argued that isolated forms of naturally occurring DNA werent patentable, but artificial DNA molecules were.
Myriad also has patent claims on artificial genes, known as cDNA.
In a statement, Myriad said the decision would allow it to keep 24 patents conferring strong patent protection for its tests on the breast-cancer genes.
(Excerpt) Read more at stream.wsj.com ...
SCOTUS ping.
Good decision; glad it was unanimous. (Well, technically, only 8 justices joined Thomas’s opinion; Scalia wrote an odd little concurrence saying that he won’t sign onto the majority opinion because it contains a lot of scientific explanations of DNA that he doesn’t understand, but he agrees with the result.)
Well, this is pretty much going to kill the genomics industry...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Not at all. Techniques for isolating a gene can be patented; any non-natural variation on a gene can be patented. Only a naturally-occurring gene can't be patented. That should increase activity in genomics; before this case, companies were afraid to do any research on the BRCA gene for fear of lawsuits.
Finally - a decision that demonstrates a little logic - something the Court has been losing grasp of for some time now.
YOU, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, its only too real...
It doesn’t make up for the DNA-swabbing ruling.
No - definitely not. Indeed, that is one of the examples of how logic has been absent in the SCOTUS. But that is just one of many examples. This court is smoking WAY too much dope, shooting up something, or is writing opinions while seriously drunk...
I think this is good on both counts. Thomas writes the opinion, but Scalia is sticking up for everyman, saying, the average person isn’t into scientific muck, but and all are saying that our DNA is our own, only patentable when removed from the body and altered by a lab.
I’ll tell ya what shouldn’t be patentable....the word “patentable”.
Good if someone uses my DNA to make a new drug I should get paid for it. My DNA belongs to me and no one else.
Personally, I wonder what took so long for this to become the law of the land. Naturally-occuring things have never been eligible for patent protection. However, the reality is that this holding is quite narrow as a particular genetic manipulation by man is subject to patent protection
The court adopted the position advanced by the Obama administration, which argued that isolated forms of naturally occurring DNA werent patentable, but artificial DNA molecules were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.