{"id":494971,"date":"2010-03-31T17:09:19","date_gmt":"2010-03-31T21:09:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.technologytransfertactics.com\/content\/?p=6249"},"modified":"2010-03-31T17:09:19","modified_gmt":"2010-03-31T21:09:19","slug":"federal-judge-invalidates-human-brca-gene-patents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/494971","title":{"rendered":"Federal judge invalidates human BRCA gene patents"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A federal judge has struck down patents held by Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape IP law. U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet issued the <a href=\"http:\/\/graphics8.nytimes.com\/packages\/pdf\/national\/20100329_patent_opinion.pdf\" >152-page decision<\/a>, which invalidated seven patents related to the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, whose mutations have been associated with cancer. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York joined with patients and medical organizations to challenge the patents last May.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs argued that genes &#8212; as products of nature &#8212; fall outside of the realm of patentable materials. The patents, they argued, stifle research and innovation and limit testing options. Myriad asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it and makes it patentable. Such patents, the company argued, have been granted for decades. In fact, many in the patent field had predicted the courts would throw out the suit. Instead, Sweet ruled that the patents were &#8220;improperly granted&#8221; because they involved a &#8220;law of nature.&#8221; He said that critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene makes it patentable &#8220;a \u2018lawyer&#8217;s trick&#8217; that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The ruling came in a long-running fight between scientists who believe that genes should not be exploited for commercial gain and companies that allege a patent is a reward for years of expensive research that moves science forward. The lawsuit contended that Myriad&#8217;s refusal to license the patents broadly has prevented women who fear they may be at risk of breast or ovarian cancers from seeking other sources of information about the genes in question. The decision is almost certain to be appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.<\/p>\n<p>The final decision in the case will have far-reaching implications. About 20% of human genes have been patented, and multibillion-dollar industries have been built around the IP rights granted. &#8220;If a decision like this were upheld, it would have a pretty significant impact on the future of medicine,&#8221; says Kenneth Chahine, a visiting law professor at the University of Utah who filed an amicus brief on the side of Myriad. Medicine is becoming more personalized, with genetic tests used not only to diagnose diseases but also to determine which medicine is best for which patient, he points out. Chahine, who once ran a biotechnology company, also warns the decision could make it harder for young companies to raise money from investors. &#8220;The industry is going to have to get more creative about how to retain exclusivity and attract capital in the face of potentially weaker patent protection,&#8221; he says.<\/p>\n<p>However, &#8220;the evidence has mounted that human gene patents are doing more harm than good,&#8221; and resulted more by accident than comprehensive policy, argues Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, CA. The Myriad patent &#8220;was particularly troublesome&#8221; because it was so broadly worded, Reynolds says. Reading the court ruling, &#8220;I saw nothing that limited it to Myriad&#8217;s patents,&#8221; he adds. Instead, the decision boiled down to a finding that &#8220;natural things aren&#8217;t patentable &#8212; inventions are,&#8221; Reynolds says.<\/p>\n<p>Edward Reines, a patent attorney in the Silicon Valley office of Weil, Gotshal &amp; Manges, notes that the loss of patent protection could diminish the incentives for genetic research. &#8220;The genetic tools to solve the major health problems of our time have not been found yet,&#8221; Reines says. &#8220;These are the discoveries we want to motivate by providing incentives to all the researchers out there.&#8221; Bryan Roberts, a Silicon Valley VC, says the decision could push more work aimed at discovering genes and diagnostic tests to universities. &#8220;The government is going to become the funder for content discovery because it&#8217;s going to be very hard to justify it outside of academia,&#8221; he says.<\/p>\n<p>Sources:\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/03\/30\/business\/30gene.html?scp=1&amp;sq=Judge+Invalidates+Human+Gene+Patent&amp;st=nyt\" >The New York Times<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2010\/03\/29\/AR2010032902762.html\" >The Washington Post<br \/>\n<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A federal judge has struck down patents held by Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape IP law. U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-494971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/494971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=494971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/494971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=494971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=494971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=494971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}