Supreme Court Rules Against Patenting Genes


Credit: eyeondna

In an unanimous decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the gene testing company Myriad Genetics' patents on versions of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are invalid. Those variants greatly increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. The Court specifically held:

A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature andnot patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring….

We also address the patent eligibility of synthetically created DNA known as complementary DNA (cDNA), which contains the same protein-coding information found in a segment of natural DNA but omits portions within the DNA segment that do not code for proteins. For the reasons that follow, we hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligiblemerely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. We, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Based on this split decision, both sides in the case claimed some vindication. As GenomeWeb News reported:

"Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, said in a statement this morning. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."

Though the decision invalidates patents covering the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which underlie Myriad Genetics' BRACAnalysis test, the firm noted in a statement after the decision that "many of Myriad's unchallenged claims are method claims applying knowledge about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes."

"We believe the Court appropriately upheld our claims on cDNA, and underscored the patent eligibility of our method claims, ensuring strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward," said Myriad President and CEO Peter Meldrum.

The ruling that cDNA is patentable also is being viewed as favorable to Myriad by some industry observers.

William Quirk, an analyst with investment firm Piper Jaffray, called the ruling "a clear victory for Myriad." He said the court's decision to leave cDNA patents intact "means it will be very unlikely for competitors to introduce competing tests short of using whole-genome sequencing, in our opinion. There are schools of thought suggesting genomic DNA as a probe, but we have not seen scientific evidence to back up that claim."

…The stock market reacted favorably to the news, sending Myriad's shares up 10 percent to $37.31 in early afternoon trade on the Nasdaq.

Myriad's stock price might have bounced up, but other analysts think that won't last.

It will be interesting to see how this new ruling affects investment in the development of genetic testing and medical biotechnology going forward. One additional thing can be concluded from this decision: I am no patent lawyer.

NEXT: Inspector of Collapsed Building in Philadelphia Commits Suicide

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m wondering when we start to see these gene included in 23 and Me’s list of markets.

  2. er markers.

    1. HM: 23andMe already does include testing for some BRCA variants:

      Hundreds of mutations have been reported in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. 23andMe provides data for only three specific cancer-associated mutations that are found mainly in people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry ? 185delAG (DD or DI at i4000377) in BRCA1, 5382insC in BRCA1 (II or DI at i4000378), and 6174delT in BRCA2 (DD or DI at i4000379). Unlike most of the genetic variants we report, these mutations are not due to one-letter changes in the DNA sequence, but the addition or deletion of one or more letters. Together these mutations account for 80-90% of all hereditary breast and ovarian cancer cases in this ethnic group.

  3. “I am no patent lawyer.”

    Don’t feel too bad about it, Bailey. SCOTUS is totally inconsistent in its patent decisions. This was a great decision, but three years ago they went the wrong way in Bilski v. Kappos. Take away message – you might not be a patent lawyer, but neither are SCOTUS.

  4. Well, at least there was some good news this week. Companies can’t own the data that makes me me.

    1. Perhaps not, but the government does own your children.

      /Melissa Harris-Perry

      1. The only black woman by the name of Harris I care to provide any of my attention is Harris Faulkner.

  5. C’mon, SCOTUS debaters …

    Patent the technology that found the gene or the analytics that figured it out… otherwise you could patent a star by discovering some new emission or absorption line in its spectrum.

    Good decision. Now, if the Patent Office or SCOTUS would only review some similarly stupid cases…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.