The U.S. Supreme Court restricted the ability of companies to patent human genetic sequences, issuing a mixed ruling in a case that raised questions about thousands of biotechnology, agricultural and drug patents. The justices unanimously ruled that parts of Myriad Genetics Inc. (MYGN)’s patents on genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer improperly covered natural phenomena. Other parts, the court said, involve enough human intervention to be eligible for legal protection. The decision left both sides of the debate claiming victory. Patient advocates, who have accused Myriad of blocking clinical testing and research, said the ruling will lead to less-expensive options for women seeking to be tested for cancer risk. The decision forces a change at the federal patent office, which has been awarding gene patents since 1982. “Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued,” said Sandra Park, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to challenge the Myriad patents. ... A group of doctors, patients and researchers challenged the Myriad patents, arguing that isolated DNA is identical to the coding that exists naturally in the body. Those supporting the challenge included the American Society of Human Genetics, the American Medical Association and AARP, which represents older Americans. Lawyers at the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation in New York represented the challengers. Myriad argued that isolated DNA has a different physical structure and chemistry than genes within the body. Biotechnology companies contended that they have been getting patents on genes for 30 years, and can’t attract investment dollars unless they can protect their research from competitors. ... The narrowness of the ruling may limit the impact among the many companies and industries that had been monitoring the legal fight. The ruling won’t hurt agribusinesses like Monsanto Co. (MON) or ones engaged in industrial microbiology such as developing new enzymes for paints, biofuel or dish soap, said Jonathan Masur, a professor at University of Chicago, who specializes in patent law. “They might not be able to patent a particular enzyme but that’s not these companies’ business model,” Masur said. “They’re building their own biological material that lives outside of nature and coming up with new forms of life.” The dispute came to the court in an emotionally charged package, with patient advocates accusing Myriad of standing in the way of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. The company at one point demanded that the University of Pennsylvania stop clinical testing of cancer patients. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit largely sided with Myriad, saying isolated DNA could be patented. bloomberg/news/2013-06-13/gene-patents-limited-by-high-court-in-mixed-ruling-for-myriad.html
Posted on: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:54:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015