ILNews

Court rules on genetic patents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling July 29 in a case that raised fundamental questions about the patentability of human genes.

In Association for Molecular Pathology, et. al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et. al., No. 10-1406, the American Civil Liberties Union and plaintiffs challenged patents on two breast cancer genes, collectively known as BRCA1/2. A judge in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, ruled last year that the defendants – Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation – were not entitled to patent protection for the genes. In July, the federal appeals court reversed that decision.

Appeals court Judge Alan Lourie wrote that Myriad’s composition claims to isolated DNA molecules are patent-eligible, as the isolated molecules are not found in nature in that state. The appeals court also reversed the District Court’s decision that Myriad’s method claims to screening potential cancer therapeutics via changes in cell growth rates is a patent-ineligible scientific principle. But the court affirmed the District Court’s decision that Myriad’s claim to comparing or analyzing DNA sequences are patent ineligible, as the process requires no transformative steps and only abstract mental steps.

While the three judges were able to reach a majority opinion in the case, two judges wrote individual opinions that shed light on the difficulties in determining the boundaries of patent-eligibility.

Judge Kimberly Moore concurred in part, writing, “The patents in this case might well deserve to be excluded from the patent system, but that is a debate for Congress to resolve. I therefore decline to extend the ‘laws of nature’ exception to include isolated DNA sequences.”

Judge William Bryson concurred in part, and dissented in part. “…We are therefore required to decide whether the process of isolating genetic material from a human DNA molecule makes the isolated genetic material a patentable invention,” he wrote. “The court concludes that it does; I conclude that it does not.”•

Rehearing "The merits of medical patents" IL July 6-19, 2011

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT