Judge Rejects Gene Patent

Last week, a federal judge threw out patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2, genes whose mutations are linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision casts doubt on patents covering thousands of human genes.

In his decision, US District Court Judge Robert Sweet  ruled the patents were “improperly granted” since they involved a “law of nature.” He rejected the notion that isolating a gene made it patentable, calling that “a ‘lawyer’s trick’” which circumvents the “prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”

The case had been brought by patients and medical organizations last May. They argued that genes, as products of nature, are discoverable and hence fall outside of the universe of things that can be patented. They also argued that patents drive up testing costs and stifle biomedical innovation.

Myriad Genetics is the company that held the BRCA patents. It markets a $3,000 test that scans for mutations in the genes which are associated with a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

Nearly 20% of all human genes have been patented. Enormous industries have been created around the intellectual property rights granted by these patents.

If the decision withstands a likely appeal, it might become difficult for companies to raise venture capital to support genomics research. “The industry is going to have to get more creative about how to retain exclusivity and attract capital in the face of potentially weaker patent protection,” said Kenneth Chahine, a law professor who filed an amicus brief for Myriad.

In that instance, “the government is going to become the funder for content discovery because it’s going to be hard to justify it outside of academia,” venture capitalist Bryan Roberts told the New York Times.

 Print This Post

 Email This Post