US District Judge Rules Gene Patents Invalid

shriphani writes "A US judge has ruled that Myriad Genetics' breast cancer gene patent is invalid. Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research. From the article: 'Patents on genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer are invalid, ruled a New York federal court today. The precedent-setting ruling marks the first time a court has found patents on genes unlawful and calls into question the validity of patents now held on approximately 2,000 human genes.'"

Comments

Re:Conversely

[eldavojohn]

Also, for context, the only real reason one would want to patent a gene is some sort of exclusivity clause (i.e. I discovered this breast cancer gene so now only I can work on a cure for it) or for patent trolling (now lets sue all the other folks working on breast cancer cures). Both scenarios would effectively destroy the ability for competing companies to work on the same disease, and lead to a massive gene-squatting free for all. IAAB (I am a biochemist), and I honestly can't think of any scenarios where being able to patent a naturally occurring gene would be good for either society as a whole or even just letting the market do what it does best.

I am not a biochemist so I must ask some questions about your particular example with breast cancer genes. I'm lead to believe that 'discovering a breast cancer gene' is extremely difficult. Doesn't the number of sets of DNA one must collect coupled with the accuracy of those collections coupled with the willingness of the volunteers coupled with the number of potential snippets of DNA that could be the gene coupled with all sorts of other complications and permutations make finding such a gene like finding a needle in a haystack? Doesn't that require vast amounts of resources? And then to do it for all sorts of diseases?

Now explain to me how those losses are recouped in your model. That's all I was asking. Not saying that astronomers should be able to patent planets they find or that discoveries should be patentable ... although I did enjoy all the strawmen that were thrown at me and the fact that they were modded up. I also enjoyed that because we've sequenced the gene, that makes for prior art should anyone actually begin to investigate what those genes are responsible for. But back to playing the devil's advocate. Here are proposed assumptions:

1. The odds of finding the breast cancer gene (or gene set, right?) are astronomically high.
2. Unfortunately, this is the only way to cure breast cancer once and for all.
3. If you found this, since it involved lottery winning odds you would recoup your investment at a lottery winning payout.
4. This doesn't mean you get to sue everyone who was looking for the gene(s) that caused breast cancer, it means if anyone uses your genes to develop a cure, you get royalties for that patent term.
5. Other teams can keep looking for a gene, they just have to normalize their data so that they aren't looking for your already discovered gene or (after checking your work against their data) doubt the accuracy of your samples and continue on with their quest.

Patent trolls are patent trolls. You'll find them anywhere you find patents. I scoff at your claims of gene squatting as you have to say what the gene does and pay the huge patent fees to get the patent (so you can't just patent each gene as the breast cancer gene).

Good luck with your work. I am glad that gene patents are invalid. I was merely expressing a mild amount of discomfort that it could have a negative overall effect. If you can assert that I'm confused or misinformed, I'd be a very happy man.

The volatility (put/call orders) on Myriad Genetics tells me this is going to have profound effects on genetics companies, I hope the best for your employment and hope that the entire genetics industry (and above searches) don't become insane burdens on the taxpayer.

Re:Natural Resource

[QuantumG]

Who modded this up? There's a real conversation to be had here, and stupid analogies don't help.

The issue is: drugs have to go through expensive clinical trials before they are legal to be sold. Currently, drug companies pay for these trials because they are guaranteed exclusivity over the manufacturer of the drug should it turn out to be viable. Gene patents are an extension of this process, they give exclusivity to the drug company to develop the drug to target the gene. Without them, gene research is unlikely to lead to drugs to treat disease.

Re:Conversely

[BitZtream]

Actually, doing it first does give you the right to patent it. Thats kind how patents work.

I realize you're talking about what you 'think' it should be, but you are a minority. The law and the general population disagree with your statements apparently.

You also misunderstand one of the points of patents which is to grant certain benefits to someone who makes their invention available for others too look at and extend.

You say the guy that did it first doesn't get anything special.

You live in a fantasy universe. The world is filled full of natural examples of how being first gives you a solid distinct advantage. If you'd like to take away the organized methods we use now and fall back to more traditional methods such as fighting to the death then I'm all for it. However I'm guessing that you don't finish first, hence your wanting the guy who does to not have an advantage ... Fortunately, those of us who do work harder and finish first will continue to be the ones who make the rules.

Sorry you're lazy or incapable, you can whine moan and complain, but you'll still finish second and have to deal with someone else having the advantage. Change the 'law' make it something different, you'll still be second.

So I'm guessing you're blaming things like Androids shitty interface on the fact that someone like Apple holds patents on the things that make a phone UI not suck ass? You think that they just got lucky in their work in a few years compared to the 20 years or so head start the other major players had on them?

No. They didn't get lucky. They busted their ass, threw the right researchers at it and came up with a winner. Now you just want anyone else to be able to do it because they would have figured it out anyway? No, they wouldn't have. They weren't putting any effort into making cellphones not suck ass before hand.

The iPod and iPhone are clear examples of someone putting more effort into making a product better than the competition and deserving not to just have everyone else copycat it tomorrow.

Sorry you're a loser, but you'll stay one until you realize that the winners aren't sitting around talking about how everything should be fair, they are out there winning, thats not going to change.