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

Conversely

[eldavojohn]

Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.

And let us also hope that financial backers and investors don't pass on the idea of investing in said research without the potential payout of a full term patent.

As unpopular as the above statement is on Slashdot and as flawed as the patent system is, it still fulfills purposes making this at least a two sided issue. Ignoring either side is nothing but folly.

You can revise your statement to read: Hopefully it's a net positive for gene research.

Re:Conversely

[alex_guy_CA]

However, most research and medical breakthroughs come from publicly funded money, research, and institutions. They only find their way into the corporate portfolio latter.

Re:Conversely

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely no way we can grant monopolies on certain aspects of life, to anyone. Whether it is a good business proposal to found science or not, it is not correct at all.

Patents like this come with the power to hold people ransom on existential needs. That cannot, ever, be right.

Another reason, Gene's are nature's "programming language". Once you can read some of it, reasonable efforts will help you to understand more of it.
 
  But, there is no point or fairness in granting anyone who finds out "something" first the right to, for many years, control its use. Things will be found out because people NEED to figure them out, even without prospect to get money from patents. This is also why you don't need to patent software - just because someone needed a selectable button and did it first, that does not mean they should be able to patent it and henceforth control all selectable buttons - someone will absolutely, positively need the exact same thing and would have figured it out themselves anyways, with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Re:Conversely

[Bigjeff5]

The genes can't be patented, because they were discovered, not created, and not discovered in the "OMG I just discovered how to make rubber!" kind of way. They were discovered in the "I just patented New England" kind of way.

Now, the tools and methods of discovery, those certainly should be patentable. The genes were always there, however, and we knew they were there somewhere, and the patent does not allow you to do anything with them, it just tells you where they are.

That is why it was struck down, and that is why this won't have any serious effect on medical research. The stuff that should be patentable is patentable, the stuff that should not be patentable is no longer patentable.

Re:Conversely

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. They can actually make proper inventions. They can invent treatments that target the gene, detection methods to find the gene, methods to remove it, alter it, whatever.

Just because they found it doesn't mean it's patentable. It's naturally occurring, and they had nothing to do with creating it.

Imagine if the guys at the LHC discovered another fundamental force. Should they be able to patent it and claim royalties on everyone who "takes advantage" of their discovery of "new gravity"?

They discovered a gene. They shouldn't have patented it in the first place, they should have invested a tiny bit more to patent a efficient detection method, and still made shitloads of money.

Re:Conversely

[Burdell]

Do you think that an astronomer should be able to patent a planet because they saw it first? How about the particle physicists working on the LHC patenting the Higgs bosun if they find it (sorry, no gravity without a license!)? Why should someone be able to patent a naturally occurring gene, just because they found it first? If they find something original, such as an easy way to detect the presence or absence of a gene that can lead to illness, or a way to use that knowledge to treat the condition caused by the gene, patent away, but nobody should be able to patent something that has existed in thousands or millions of people for decades or centuries just because they were the first to track it down. They didn't invent or create anything.

Re:Conversely

[robotkid]

As unpopular as the above statement is on Slashdot and as flawed as the patent system is, it still fulfills purposes making this at least a two sided issue. Ignoring either side is nothing but folly. You can revise your statement to read: Hopefully it's a net positive for gene research.

Good thought, especially for more tricky examples like patient-derived cell lines or naturally occurring therapeutic molecules, but in this case such worry is not warranted. Treatments, cures, diagnostics, etc are all still patentable, and they are what the investors were looking to make their money from in the first place.

The central issue at stake was whether the discovery of a gene in and of itself, which is just a snipped of biological information, was patentable, and all the resulting technology that utilized that information would be rendered derivative works. Think about that for a moment, if someone went out and discovered a new type of fish, maybe they'd get to name it but they certainly can't claim to own all future profits made by anyone else catching and selling that fish. More to the point, if someone then discovered that the fish produced a chemical that cured some disease, they original discoverer of the fish would not have the ability to sue and say that was reverse engineering of his patented intellectual property. Discovering a gene is not terribly different - it already existed all over the world long before we had to tools to identify and study it. Discovering is different than inventing, and in the case of genes discovery by itself is a far cry from understanding how it works, much less how to manipulate it to fix a disease.

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.

Re:Conversely

[PitaBred]

The device or a novel process? Yes. But you should not be able to patent the gene which effectively makes your device the only way to detect the disease. That is not what the patent system is for. It is for protecting novel inventions, not for locking up essential, basic knowledge with a toll booth.

Re:Conversely

[laughingcoyote]

But the fact still remains, any treatment, drug, etc., based upon the gene's discovery, is as patentable as it ever was. The only thing you can't patent is the gene itself, and that's quite correct. If you discover a certain isotope, and find a way to make workable fusion energy from it, you can patent your reactor, but not the isotope itself. That's exactly how the patent system is meant to work-you can patent things you invent, but not things you just find.

That being said, it always saddens me to see "capitalism" thrown around like it's some unimpeachable, unquestionable good force. I wish people would question it, as it's sure got an awful lot of negatives. At some point, I sure hope we can find a better system.

Natural Resource

[LightPhoenix7]

You can't patent coal, or wood, so why should you be able to patent a natural resource like DNA? If they create something new from it, like a new allele or treatment, I'd say that's fair game. In the end, this is an extremely important ruling, but unfortunately it's probably not the end. It will probably require the Supreme Court to make a ruling. I don't see anyone involved giving up that easily.

Discovery, not Invention

[BlueBoxSW.com]

See the difference?

Re:I don't get it !

[Jurily]

Prior art.