No Gene Patents

[Rorschach]

Common sense prevails.
let's hope it is global.

Companies can't patent genes, US court rules
June 14, 2013 - 10:52AM

The highest court in the United States has ruled that human genes cannot be controlled by companies.

The decision could lead to the overturning of thousands of patents already granted on human genes and may have ramifications for a case currently under way in Australia challenging the patent on the so-called breast cancer gene, BRCA1.

Rebecca Gilsenan, the principal lawyer at the company fighting the Australian patent, Maurice Blackburn, said the US decision was exciting and encouraging.

"The Australian court is not bound by the what the US Supreme Court has decided, however, I expect that an Australian court will be very interested in what the Supreme Court has decided and the reasons it had, and will take notice of that," she said. "It's a very significant development by a very significant court."

In February, Maurice Blackburn lost an Australian Federal Court case challenging the ruling that a patent could be granted on a mutation in the BRCA1 gene that drastically increases a person's risk of cancer.

In August an appeal will be heard, in which the law firm will argue Federal Court Justice Nicholas erred in finding that simply isolating a gene outside the body constituted a form of new manufacture.

Ms Gilsenan said it was heartening that the Supreme Court had sided with the arguments being put forward by her firm in Australia.

"The US Supreme Court has held up the essence of the argument we have put forward in our case, that genes are a naturally occurring substance that are not patentable," she said.

She said final submissions on the appeal were due today, so the firm would be able to refer to the US decision.

The central question for the justices in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology versus Myriad Genetics, was whether isolated genes are "products of nature" that may not be patented or "human-made inventions" eligible for patent protection.

Myriad's discovery of the precise location and sequence of the genes at issue, BRCA1 and BRCA2, did not qualify, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

"A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," he said. "It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

"Groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the criteria" for patent eligibility, he said.

But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature, Justice Thomas added, is an invention eligible for patent protection.

He also left the door open for other ways for companies to profit from their research.They may patent the methods of isolating genes, he said.

"But the processes used by Myriad to isolate DNA were well understood by geneticists," Thomas wrote.

He added that companies may also obtain patents on new applications of knowledge gained from genetic research.

The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors, who said their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated.

The particular genes at issue received public attention after the actress Angelina Jolie revealed in May that she had had a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she had inherited a faulty copy of a gene that put her at high risk for breast cancer.

The price of the test, often more than $3000, puts it out of reach for some women, and is partly due to Myriad's patent.

The company filed patent infringement suits against others who conducted testing based on the gene.

In Australia, Myriad has granted an exclusive licence to the patent to a company called Genetic Technologies Limited.

In 2008, Genetic Technologies attempted to enforce its patent rights over the gene, and threatened pathology and cancer centres with legal action.

After a public backlash, it did not follow through with its threat, and while Myriad has actively defended the case in Australia, Genetic Technologies has not.

with New York Times

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-te ... z2W9GoBpDS

[Rorschach]

The decision hewed closely to the position of the Obama administration, which had argued that isolated DNA could not be patented, but that complementary DNA, or cDNA, which is an artificial construct, could. The patentability of cDNA could limit some of the impact on industry from the decision.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/human-genes ... z2W9OevIz7

[Black Orchid]

That's so wrong on all levels. How can you possibly patent nature?

[Chard]

That's so wrong on all levels. How can you possibly patent nature?

You do understand that your logic implies that you cannot patent anything based on the natural world? That would effectively mean nothing is patentable if it involves anything physical at all.

Christ, is it really that difficult to think things through before you post, guys?

[AnimalMother]

That's so wrong on all levels. How can you possibly patent nature?

You do understand that your logic implies that you cannot patent anything based on the natural world? That would effectively mean nothing is patentable if it involves anything physical at all.

Uh, no it doesn't.

It simply states that you can't patent something that already exists in the natural world.

Something that you've invented yourself, whether based on a natural occurrence or not, is not something found in the natural world. It's something new that didn't previously exist, therefore patentable.

[Chard]

It simply states that you can't patent something that already exists in the natural world.

So you napped through all of your science courses in high school and decided an arts degree is a good idea then. Gotcha...

If you cannot patent that which exists already in the natural world that means you cannot patent anything based on or using anything occurring in nature. That means no biological, chemical, or mechanical processes could be patented ever since they all involve naturally occurring phenomenon. You also cannot use any materials made from or derived from naturally occurring substances. If you cannot patent anything in nature that means you cannot patent anything at all.

Something that you've invented yourself, whether based on a natural occurrence or not, is not something found in the natural world. It's something new that didn't previously exist, therefore patentable.

Yes, I invented science, a titanic discovery right up there with sliced bread! For my next trick I'm going to see if I can devise a cure for whatever crippling learning disorder it is you suffer from.

[AnimalMother]

It seems you're being deliberately obtuse.

There is a clear distinction between things that occur in nature without human planning, and things that have never occurred in nature but are the products of intentional human design.

If you can't understand the difference between a horse's legs and a V-8 engine, I don't think we have common ground for communication.

[Mattus]

The brca genes definitely existed in the natural world. But of course no one knew they did, until some brilliant scientists discovered them. It does seem a shame that those scientists are expected to simply hand over their brilliant and innovative discovery for commercial use without any royalty or recompense for thier innovation.

I'm not sure that a patent is the right wa to protect this. But some form of protection for innovation (rather than simply invention) does seem warranted to me.

[Rorschach]

Well Mattus let them patent the discovery process.
But... IMO naturally occurring things should not be considered for one minute to be allowed to be patented.
Should I patent the rain the dirt the clouds perhaps.
My finger, your eye... a dog?

The article did cover this.

[IQS.RLOW]

They are going to need to fix this somehow. If there is no incentive for gene therapy discoveries, then it will result in potential cures being overlooked.

Which begs the question would you prefer that the evil greedy capitalists be unable to patent genes or would you prefer diseases to go uncured?