ILNews

SCOTUS rules on Myriad BRCA1, BRCA2 patent case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A naturally occurring DNA segment is not eligible for a patent simply because it has been isolated, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Thursday. DNA that is not a product of nature may be patent eligible, however.

The ruling came in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics Inc., et al., 12-398, in which Myriad filed several patents after discovering the precise location and sequence of what are known as BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations in these genes can significantly increase a person’s risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer.

Other organizations offered BRCA testing after Myriad discovered the genes, but the company asserted that testing infringed on its patents.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held both isolated DNA and cDNA – which is an exons-only molecule that is created in a lab – are patent eligible. Two of the three judges on the panel held that the act of isolating DNA allows a company to obtain a patent.

The question in this case is whether Myriad’s discovery of the location and genetic sequences of the genes render it patentable under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.

 “In this case … Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention,” the opinion states, delivered by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. All of the justices joined, with Associate Justice Antonin Scalia joining in part.

“The court said that you can't get a patent on a DNA sequence that has been isolated from its surrounding material because it's a ‘product of nature,’ but you can potentially get a patent on a DNA sequence that has been altered in the lab,” explained Mark D. Janis, director of the Center for Intellectual Property Research at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Thomas noted what was not implicated by this decision. There are no method claims before the court; the processes used by Myriad to isolate the DNA were well understood and widely used. The case doesn’t involved patents on new applications of knowledge about these genes. And the court did not consider the patentability of DNA in which the order of the naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered.

“We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material.”

Janis believes the impact of Thursday’s decision will be modest.

“There are many alternative ways to claim biotechnology inventions, and the court's decision is directed only to one of those strategies,” he said. “In the long term, I think it will be viewed largely as a symbolic gesture by the court – a reminder that at least some subject matter does lie in the zone of ineligible products of nature. I do not think it will be regarded as a particularly memorable exposition of patent law principles.”


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT