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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT