Supreme Court Throws Out Human Gene Patents

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Throws Out Human Gene Patents

Posted by Soulskill on Monday March 26, 2012 @09:23AM from the klingon-gene-patents-still-ok dept.

thomst sends this quote from an Associated Press report: "The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling allowing human genes to be patented, a topic of enormous interest to cancer researchers, patients and drug makers. The court overturned patents belonging to Myriad Genetics Inc. of Salt Lake City on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The justices' decision sends the case back down to the federal appeals court in Washington that handles patent cases. The high court said it sent the case back for rehearing because of its decision in another case last week saying that the laws of nature are unpatentable. In that case, the 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."

20 of 91 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not exactly... by Theaetetus · 2012-03-26 09:28 · Score: 5, Informative

"The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling allowing human genes to be patented, a topic of enormous interest to cancer researchers, patients and drug makers. The court overturned patents belonging to Myriad Genetics Inc. of Salt Lake City on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
Not quite. The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit ruling that the patents were valid and infringed, and remanded back for reconsideration based on the recent Prometheus v. Mayo case. Basically saying, "take another look." They did not however "overturn patents" nor did they "throw out human gene patents" as the headline states.
We can make predictions and argue about what the Federal Circuit will likely decide on remand, and what the Supreme Court might then do if re-appealed, but it's not nearly as over as the headline or summary say.
1. Re:Not exactly... by YodasEvilTwin · 2012-03-26 09:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Thank you for fighting the good fight on irresponsible journalism, good sir.
2. Re:Not exactly... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The headline gave me hope. Patenting human genes or any naturally occurring genes is insane. You might as well patent blue eyes. Just because you are the first one to see it and identify it doesn't make it personal property especially when most of us have it in our bodies already. This was always about controlling whole lines of research. We have people dying from breast cancer, and yes men die from it too, while a corporation pisses all over the gene that causes it to prevent others from working on a cure that involves the very gene that causes it. Who cares if thousands and potentially millions die when there are corporate profits at stake! The whole system is insane.
3. Re:Not exactly... by Sique · 2012-03-26 10:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But why should the gene be patented? The patent seeker in question didn't invent the gene, nor did he invent the way it expresses into proteins, nor did he invented the proteins synthesized. Someone discovered what role the gene plays in the metabolism, but that's a discovery, not an invention.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
4. Re:Not exactly... by pepty · 2012-03-26 12:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But why should the gene be patented? The patent seeker in question didn't invent the gene, nor did he invent the way it expresses into proteins, nor did he invented the proteins synthesized. Someone discovered what role the gene plays in the metabolism, but that's a discovery, not an invention.
  That's not what the patents cover.
  They usually cover:
  1. Adding or removing genes from an organism to give the organism a useful new phenotype (corn that makes bt toxin).
  2. A process for manufacturing a protein that includes taking it out of the original organism and expressing it in a different one so that you get a higher yield.
  3. A diagnostic based on the presence of a particular version of a gene or protein (what this case was about)
  4. A new version of a protein that is more useful than the natural one.
  Some are still pretty obnoxious though.
5. Re:Not exactly... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-03-26 15:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, it's not a reason not to patent it. The reason is that the gene existed and did what it did before you discovered what it did. It doesn't matter that you just discovered the gene that makes me able to regulate the insulin in my blood. I've been using that gene for that purpose and so has almost everybody else. If you now use that new knowledge to make a drug that helps diabetics, good for you. You can patent THAT DRUG. But you shouldn't be able to patent the gene or the mechanisms by which it operates. Those are simply facts of nature. Those facts belong to nobody even though you discovered them.
  Now if somebody else figures out how to make the same thing happen with a different drug (that works better than yours or is easier to produce) THAT person should own the rights to their drug. I consider every drug to be non-obvious, because it's never obvious that a novel substance when introduced into the body will be safe and effective. Often all the indications are that a candidate drug will work, only it proves to have unsafe side effects or doesn't work because of some factor that the inventors couldn't know about without trying it in real patients.
  As for patenting genes in living organisms, it shouldn't be allowed unless all of the organisms are to be contained in a secure environment under your physical control. Once it escapes control, only the original maker should be held liable for its propagation and any economic damages that it caused.
6. Re:Not exactly... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 17:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But why should the gene be patented? The patent seeker in question didn't invent the gene, nor did he invent the way it expresses into proteins, nor did he invented the proteins synthesized. Someone discovered what role the gene plays in the metabolism, but that's a discovery, not an invention.
  That's not what the patents cover.
  They usually cover:
  1. Adding or removing genes from an organism to give the organism a useful new phenotype (corn that makes bt toxin).
  2. A process for manufacturing a protein that includes taking it out of the original organism and expressing it in a different one so that you get a higher yield.
  3. A diagnostic based on the presence of a particular version of a gene or protein (what this case was about)
  4. A new version of a protein that is more useful than the natural one.
  Some are still pretty obnoxious though.
  Please mod the parent up, these are crucial details here, and as always, the devil is in the details.
  To clarify some more, in the pharmaceutical world, the simplest standard for patent-ability of a novel chemical compound is that it does not exist in nature. So penicillin itself, for example, cannot be patented because it occurs naturally in mold. A process for purifying it from mold, however, is quite patentable. Or, if you chemically modified penicillin slightly by adding a doohickey bit to one end such that it even works on penicillin-resistant bacteria, that would also be patentable since penicillin doesn't exist in nature with the doohickey bit. Sure, that may seem like cheating, slightly, but there is undeniably much value added in figuring out exactly how many ways you can tinker with penicillin and make new antibiotics.
  In the biotech world, this simple and commonsense criteria has been ridiculously abused. The argument, summarized briefly, is that when you isolate a gene you have to snip it out of the rest of the DNA before you can run a test on it, and that isolated snippet doesn't naturally occur in the universe (only the whole honking genome does). Semi-magically, the gene is not patentable inside a genome as it naturally exists, but if you cut it out, it's a "different molecule" that is now patentable.
  What about the whole test aspect, you say?
  There is some language in the patent law that the details of your innovation must be "non-obvious to a person skilled in the art".
  Once you know the sequence of the gene involved, the mechanics of doing a test is pretty much something you could do yourself in a high school biology lab. The principles are taught in intro biology textbooks, you can order all the reagents you need and use a mail order sequencing lab for probably under 50$ a pop. So there's really no value added in providing the details of how to make a test for a gene once you've isolated it. Any idiot could teach themselves how to do it over the weekend, it requires no particular expertise whatsoever once you know the sequence of the gene. So defending the process of designing a test once the gene is known clearly does not pass that test for patentable in and of itself.
  Proponents of gene patents argue that it would be the most equitable mechanism to help recoup the massive expenses involved in figuring out exactly what genes are involved with disease and how to design a treatment plan based on the results of specific, targeted gene tests. Which would be great if there was anything in the patent code that ensured the people who figured out how a gene works and why you would care to test for it end up with the patent for it. But as it stands now, there are no standards on what level of detail must be provided for the "how" and "why" aspects in a gene-test patent application, just the raw sequence itself.
  In the Myriad Genetics case, for example, the company with a monopoly on test for a major breast cancer gene was not the same group of people who first isolated the gene and figured out what it did. Academi
Patent links by CapitalR · 2012-03-26 09:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's links to a few of the patents in question:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5747282.PN.&OS=PN/5747282&RS=PN/5747282
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5837492.PN.&OS=PN/5837492&RS=PN/5837492
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5693473.PN.&OS=PN/5693473&RS=PN/5693473
And here's the Federal Appeals Court case, which lists the rest of the patents:
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Assn_for_Molecular_Pathology_v_US_Patent__Trademark_Office_653_F3
WOW... by El+Fantasmo · 2012-03-26 09:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nature is unpatentable, something everyone knows and understands until you get a law degree.
Please, please, please let this ruling stick!
These same justices also need to decide that Monsanto's GMO crop products are WILLFULLY contaminating other people's property. If Monsanto can stop their GMOs' pollen from being carried by the wind, then they can lay claim to all plants with Monsanto genes, until then...
1. Re:WOW... by garyebickford · 2012-03-26 10:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes. Someone should prosecute Monsanto for criminal trespass. (No joke, it's a valid legal principle - companies and people have been prosecuted criminally and also sued for damages for allowing their critters, fumes, liquids, waste etc. to escape their property and cause damage on others' property. With respect to Monsanto, it's a bit more complicated because Monsanto is essentially allowing, encouraging and forcing their customers to do the trespassing. I suppose that could be considered conspiracy?
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Genes have been patented for years by ozduo · 2012-03-26 09:40 · Score: 4, Funny

didn't Levi patent Genes years ago or did he just invent them?

--
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
ABOUT TIME! by quixote9 · 2012-03-26 09:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm a biologist and I watched the whole evolution of PCR and the mad scramble to patent every bit of human DNA with stunned disbelief. Did the legal beagles not understand that they were allowing the equivalent of patenting somebody else's books in a library?

Apparently, they didn't.

But, after a generation or so, and a festering swamp of patents, the truth seems to be dawning on them. I shall watch our future progress with considerable interest.
1. Re:ABOUT TIME! by rahvin112 · 2012-03-26 10:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well Myriad's been making a TON of money charging people $3500 for a $200 test all because they patented the gene in question (not the test which is standard DNA profiling).
Whatta world, whatta world by Cazekiel · 2012-03-26 09:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Love this from the article... The justices' decision sends the case back down for a continuation of the battle between the 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.
A reward for doing their jobs, what they're paid to do. Isn't that what their paycheck is for, the money they get from the medications/equipment/etc. they develop? Would they seriously stand in the way of a group of lower-on-the-totem-pole scientists for actually coming up with a cure, claiming "No, you can't cure this strain of ovarian cancer, since it involves such-and-such gene--we own that."? The fact that I lean toward 'yea, they would, wouldn't they?' makes me feel ill. We live in a world where we can be sued for posting a kid's birthday party on youtube with the 'Happy Birthday' song in it, and screw us all if we get cancer and can't rely on different, smaller companies that were on the brink of discovering cures but didn't have the dough to fight the C&D orders.

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Re:/. car analogy by mellon · 2012-03-26 09:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

So basically what you're saying is that there's no obvious distinction to draw between things being red and things being hot, and so either both should be patentable, or neither should. This is entirely correct. Patents are a bad idea. We should just get rid of them entirely. Okay, now, back to the real world. In the real world, we aren't abandoning patents altogether, so courts have to litigate these stupid angel-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin questions, and they have to come up with plausible-seeming justifications for invalidating patents that are clearly bogus, while still pretending that these same justifications don't apply to less glaring cases to which, as you have pointed out, they really do apply. Sux2bus.
Re:COOL!!! by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-03-26 09:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Now the patent trolls can't sue me for violating a megacorps' 'patent' because I'm still breathing!
Crap! I was told to resolve the "jamstar7 is still breathing" problem before the Supreme Court made their decision - now I'm not going to get paid!

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:COOL!!! by ackthpt · 2012-03-26 09:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Now the patent trolls can't sue me for violating a megacorps' 'patent' because I'm still breathing!
We are now free to mutate without fear of lawsuit. To the Transmogrifier!!!

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:COOL!!! by CanHasDIY · 2012-03-26 10:06 · Score: 3, Funny

We are now free to mutate without fear of lawsuit. To the Transmogrifier!!!
Scientific progress goes 'Boink?'

Or is that only when you turn the Transmogrifier on its side?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:COOL!!! by Endo13 · 2012-03-26 10:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

I carry my trusty transmogrifier gun with me. That way, should I happen to accidentally get carried several miles into the air by a balloon I'm still safe!

--
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Re:COOL!!! by erroneus · 2012-03-26 10:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

We now need to expand on this throwing out any patent on any gene at all. GM foods may or may not be a good idea, but to patent anything alive is definitely a bad and dangerous thing when it puts a tiny minority in control of the world's food supply.