Supreme Court to decide if genes can be patented
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether companies can patent human genes, a decision that could reshape medical research in the United States and the fight against diseases like breast and ovarian cancer.
The justices' decision will likely resolve an ongoing battle between scientists who believe that genes carrying the secrets of life should not be exploited for commercial gain and companies that argue that a patent is a reward for years of expensive research that moves science forward.
Patented Genes
Breast cancer awareness: 25 myths busted
The current case involves Myriad Genetics Inc. of Salt Lake City, which has patents on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad's BRACAnalysis test looks for mutations on the breast cancer predisposition gene, or BRCA. Those mutations are associated with much greater risks of breast and ovarian cancer.
But the American Civil Liberties Union challenged those patents, arguing that genes couldn't be patented, and in March 2010, a New York district court agreed. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now twice ruled that genes can be patented, in Myriad's case because the isolated DNA has a "markedly different chemical structure" from DNA within the body.
Among the ACLU's plaintiffs are geneticists who said they were not able to continue their work because of Myriad's patents, as well as breast cancer and women's health groups, patients and groups of researchers, pathologists and laboratory professionals. "It's wrong to think that something as naturally occurring as DNA can be patented by a single company that limits scientific research and the free exchange of ideas," said Chris Hansen, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.
A call to a Myriad spokeswoman was not immediately returned, but in court papers the company's lawyers said without being able to patent and profit from their work, they would not be able to fund the type of medical breakthroughs doctors depend on. The company also said that deciding now that genes can't be patented would throw into chaos current research and profits structures for drug-makers and medical research companies, who have gotten more than 40,000 DNA-related patents from the Patent and Trademark Office for almost 30 years, according to court papers.
"Moving the goalposts of patent eligibility for these patents now would ... undermine the interests of the investing community: Clear and certain patent protection is critical to honor the interests of past investors, such as those who funded the research behind these inventions," the company said in court papers.
- Should firms be able to own your genes?
- Mammograms, X-rays may increase breast cancer risk in some women with specific genetic mutations
In 2010, a federal judge ruled that genes cannot be patented. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said he invalidated the patents because DNA's existence in an isolated form does not alter the fundamental quality of DNA as it exists in the body or the information it encodes. But the federal appeals court reversed him in 2011, saying Myriad's genes can be patented because the isolated DNA has a "markedly different chemical structure" from DNA within the body.
The Supreme Court threw out that decision and sent the case back to the lower courts for rehearing. This came after the high court unanimously threw out patents on a Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., test that could help doctors set drug doses for autoimmune diseases like Crohn's disease, saying the laws of nature are unpatentable.
But the federal circuit upheld Myriad's patents again in August, leading to the current review. The court likely will hear the case in the early spring and rule before the end of the summer.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- TWA Flight 800 disaster - a look back 19 Photos
- Serena Williams sorry for "what I supposedly said" on rape 73 Comments
- TWA Flight 800 gets another look 17 years later 113 Comments
- 3 football players charged in Naval Academy rape case
- America's endangered historic places 11 Photos
- FBI: No sign of Jimmy Hoffa's body in Detroit suburb 59 Comments
- Taliban offers prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
- FBI finds possible remains at gangster's NYC home
A company, for example, should not be allow to file a patent covered a general situation. An excellent example of which is the gesture system used to control smart phones. Apple has filed numerous lawsuits trying to keep other manufacturers from using a gesture based interface.
Apple would also like us to believe they own the patent on a rectangle with rounded corners.
I don't mean to pick on Apple as I do love their products but they are such an easy target.
Additionally, it's sickening to see so many patents being approved for things that were clearly in the public domain for many years.
Hopefully the court stomps on the patent system in a big way with this ruling.
Otherwise, I agree... especially regarding Apple. Especially as Apple sued Samsung for copying... when it was Apple that copied Xerox 30 years earlier... and Xerox lost its lawsuit. But Xerox didn't have any patents.
And having read some of those patents, the wording is glib - and could be used to cover tangential issues. Right down to communication protocols that go back decades, but slightly reworded to fit what happens inside the phone. But it's the same process, which has been around for a LONG time... ugh...
The patent system is grossly skewed...