Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent

[Joanne98]

A federal judge on Monday struck down patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt the patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape the law of intellectual property

United States District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet issued the 152-page decision, which invalidated seven patents related to the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, whose mutations have been associated with cancer.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html?ref=business

[stray cat]

1. This is a big deal and I think a good one

[ixion]

2. good...

human genes should not be patentable.

[freethought]

3. Genes are not "invented"

God! I am hoping this is the start of a trend in how patents are determined. Like I said, genes are not "invented". Myriad Genetics did not "invent" the two genes, they only isolated and mapped them. A patent implies they somehow assembled the genes from nothing.