Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent

[steven johnson]

So human genetics can't be patented because they involve laws of nature. This contradicts a large number of patents of genetic material that have so far been granted. Get ready for a large number of legal and judicial maneuvers to protect weaker pantent protection of DNA sequencing.

By JOHN SCHWARTZ and ANDREW POLLACK
Published: March 29, 2010

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York joined with individual patients and medical organizations to challenge the patents last May: they argued that genes, products of nature, fall outside of the realm of things that can be patented. The patents, they argued, stifle research and innovation and limit testing options.

Myriad Genetics, the company that holds the patents with the University of Utah Research Foundation, asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it and makes it patentable. Such patents, it said, have been granted for decades; the Supreme Court upheld patents on living organisms in 1980. In fact, many in the patent field had predicted the courts would throw out the suit.

Myriad Genetics, the company that holds the patents with the University of Utah Research Foundation, asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it and makes it patentable. Such patents, it said, have been granted for decades; the Supreme Court upheld patents on living organisms in 1980. In fact, many in the patent field had predicted the courts would throw out the suit.

Judge Sweet, however, ruled that the patents were “improperly granted” because they involved a “law of nature.” He said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”

Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent

[Meldread]

1. Awesome. I hope it stands up, it's certain to head right for the Supreme Court.

I'm not completely certain that it will, but I hope it does. I also hope it doesn't undermine the field of research in this area. If I'm not mistaken that's how these research companies made their money: isolate the genes, patent them, then sell or lease the rights to use those genes to other companies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. "This contradicts a large number of patents of genetic material"

I don't think it does. This only applies to a patent on an actual code of a naturally occuring gene. It won't apply to novel applications of that code, nor will it apply to "non-natural" genes used in so many GMOs.

[Posteritatis]

3. Several thousand naturally-occurring human genes are patented. (nt)

[Jim__]

4. Good new for now. But, the Roberts court has consistently sided with corporations over people - n/t

[lazarus]

5. not in their view

In their view, corporations are people.