ILNews

The merits of medical patents

High-stakes court cases highlight debates in IP law.

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments in a case that raises fundamental questions about the patentability of human genes. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take on a patent case in which the central issue is the patentability of a medical process. Both cases could have far-reaching effects – in medicine, in law, and in academia.

In Indiana, people who study the intricacies of intellectual property law and medicine are now waiting to learn how the courts will rule on some of the most controversial issues in IP law.

Patenting genes

David Orentlicher, co-director of the William S. and Christine S. Hall Center for Law and Health at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, explained why controversy exists about the patent eligibility of genes.
 

orentlicher-dave-mug.jpg Orentlicher

“We want to reward you for your inventiveness,” he said. “But then when you get to patenting genes, you think, well how much of this is really inventiveness, finding a gene that exists in nature?”

This is the heart of the debate in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology, et. al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et. al., No. 10-1406, now under consideration in federal appeals court. In that case, 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.

Curt Cichowski, associate dean for Valparaiso University School of Law, said the point of contention in this case is not the genes, but rather the method used to reveal them.


Curt Cichowski Cichowski

“It’s the process that’s involved – so even though you can’t patent a human gene, the process of isolating a human gene is patentable,” he said.

Jay Sanders, a partner at Baker & Daniels who specializes in biotechnology patent law, said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Manual of Patenting Procedure offers guidance about what genetic material is patent-eligible.


sanders-jay-mug.jpg Sanders

“They have chapters about how you go about certain requirements for patenting genes … so it came as a quite a shock to me that there would be a District Court judge questioning whether genes were patentable,” Sanders said. “Some of the caselaw that that judge cited in his opinion was from the 1800s.”

Patenting processes

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, in June, agreeing to hear the case for a second time.

Cichowski said that Prometheus Laboratories had been conducting blood tests on patients to determine if medication dosing was correct. Mayo Collaborative Services began using a similar method and Prometheus sued Mayo for infringement. Mayo claims that the Prometheus patents didn’t pass the “machine-or-transformation” test.

That test – as defined by the USPTO – means that a process is patent-eligible if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus or if it “transforms a particular article to a different state or thing.” Cichowski said that Mayo argues that the human body is the “machine” Prometheus used to gather results, and because the human body is found in nature, the process is not patentable.

“I think we’re going to see what is patentable as a medical process, and that’s what we really need to get to,” Cichowski said.

Mark D. Janis, director of Indiana University Maurer School of Law’s Center for Intellectual Property Research, said that in the 1990s, a few cases caused people to wonder whether doctors who used patented medical processes might be sued for infringement.

“The first reaction was, ‘We should change patent laws to make surgical processes ineligible for patent protection,’” Janis said. Instead, the Ganske Amendment – enacted by Congress in 1996 as the Medical Procedures Innovation and Affordability Act – placed limits on the enforceability of medical process patents.


janis-mark-mug.jpg Janis

“The compromise was a doctor can still get a patent on that process,” Cichowski said. “However, any medical professional who performs that process cannot be held liable for infringement.”

Cost v. benefit

“There’s no question that advances in medical technology is one of the most important factors in health care cost inflation,” Orentlicher said. “A lot of new cancer drugs can cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands for a year’s worth of therapy.”

Companies depend on patents to protect the costly research that’s behind medical innovation, Sanders said. If not for the incentive of patent protection, Myriad may have never pursued the work that led to the discovery of the BRCA1/2 genes.

“For every success that they have, there’s probably a lot of work that just gets thrown in the garbage can,” Sanders said.

The patent office pressures researchers to narrowly define discoveries, he explained, but if the patent claim is too narrowly defined, it won’t prevent a competitor from developing a similar technology.

Janis said that in pharmaceutical development in particular, the cost of clinical trials, research, and the lengthy Food and Drug Administration approval process can be prohibitive. Yet, a competitor could replicate a medicine cheaply, if not for patent protection.

This year, Pfizer’s patent on its cash cow cholesterol drug Lipitor will expire, Cichowski said, opening up the market to generic versions. “But the price of Lipitor while it was still covered under patent was enormous,” he added.

“We do need to have some sort of a system that rewards the inventor for making advancements in medicine that we all want,” Cichowski said. But the patent process was designed at a different time, with different ideas in mind, he continued.

“Patenting human genes – I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever thought that was gonna happen.”•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT