Judge: Gene Patents Are Invalid
from the huge-news dept
In a huge ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet has said that gene patents are invalid. As you may recall, last May, the ACLU was the first to finally challenge whether or not genes could be patented. There was a lot of back and forth over the case, with many saying that a ruling against gene patents would throw a wrench into the business plans of many companies, because so many biotech/medical companies have been relying on the idea that gene patents must be valid for so long. But just because many companies relied on a mistaken understanding of patent law, doesn't mean that it should be allowed to continue. The judge made the point clear when it came to gene patents, saying that they:"are directed to a law of nature and were therefore improperly granted."The case was brought against Myriad Genetics, who will surely appeal, so this is nowhere close to over. But it involved a test for breast cancer, that Myriad basically had a monopoly over -- and the claim was that this not only made it more difficult for women to get tested, but it also greatly discouraged other research in the field. In part, this was because the patents that Myriad held were incredibly broad.
Patents, of course, are not supposed to be granted on things found in in nature -- and it's hard to argue against the idea that genes are found in nature. Supporters of gene patents often claim that they're not really gene patents, but a patent on identifying the gene, which is a nice semantic game that the judge clearly saw through. This is a huge step forward for encouraging more real research into genetic testing, rather than locking up important information.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brca1, gene patents, genes, invalid, nature, patents
Companies: aclu, myriad genetics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope it goes poorly for Monsanto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:-D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Essentially: this is not an invention it is a discovery. Screening something that makes use of such discovery is just such basic biology that the screening technique cannot even be considered as sufficiently advanced.
What would be more interesting than screening is the healing itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suppose I don't really see the line between unimplemented invention and discovery.. If the idea is not a sufficient advancement, then it is not a sufficient advancement. Then this idea is not worthy of a patent.. How does it extend to "ideas in this field can never be worthy of patents".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, this argument should apply to other areas, but it isn't applied enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unimplemented Invention vs Discovery
I find something growing in the grass and I eat it: that is a discovery.
The first I might be able to patent; the second is something I found and should never be patentable.
In this case finding BRCA (that is what I think they are talking about) is a discovery, not an unimplemented invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unimplemented Invention vs Discovery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I am trying to understand is how allowing a patent on the test can be harmful and in constast, allowing one on the treatment can be helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...not an invention it is a discovery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Looks like you can't tell very far...
There is a difference between a discovery and an invention.
Genes are discovered.
Light bulbs, gramophones, lasers and the like have to be invented - they weren't "out there" in nature beforehand like genes. It's a fairly basic distinction, I'm surprised you couldn't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye to lawsuits against farmers by GMO Corn Mfg!
Hopefully, this will stick and all GMO seeds will no longer be patented and the world will be a better place for bad companies with not enough to do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have any verifiable evidence or analysis to back that up that claim?
If so, I'd like to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Says who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what. Theoretically we live in a free-market system. What this means is that products come into existence when there is demand for them. If you invent a product and it is uneconomic, too bad.
You ignore the role of university research. It is quite unfortunate that taxpayer dollars can be used by private entities to patent products that should be in the public domain. See the Bayh-Dole Act
Also see How Patents Have Harmed University Research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Computer Virus Copyright Scam
No - but it does fall under copyright!
Hey I just thought of a great scam.
Step 1 create computer virus
Step 2 register copyright
Step 3 release virus
Step 4 Sue everyone who has an infected computer for infringement and demand statutory damages.
Somone tell me why this doesn't work under current law (it matches Monsanto's tactics quite closely)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Computer Virus Copyright Scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Computer Virus Copyright Scam
So again, explain why this isn't the same as infecting someone with a computer virus, then suing them for patent infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Computer Virus Copyright Scam
In the case of GMO's going onto a farmer's land, the owner or creator of the GMO did not deliberately place the GMO on a neighboring farmer's land.
Just because the scenarios are different and because I explained them does not mean I support suing farmers on neighboring land. In fact, it seems like that the GMO should take affirmative action from preventing their GMO from drifting onto a neighboring farmer's property. What if you do not want the GMO? I saw a recent article that said two things:
(1) GMO crops have lower yields than non-GMO crops.
(2) Weeds are developing resistance to Roundup, which means the effectiveness of Roundup is decreasing.
Plus, there are questions that are being raised regarding the safety of Roundup, which I think has been banned in some European countries.
In a few more years this entire conversation will be moot. The Roundup soy bean patents expire in 2014, I think, and the corn patents expire a couple of years later. Unfortunately, by then Roundup may be of far less use than it once was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Computer Virus Copyright Scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Computer Virus Copyright Scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt this ruling will affect the Monsanto lawsuits
If this ruling stands it'll be an enormous boon for science and health. It's always been ridiculous on its face that companies could patent the application of widely used techniques to identify or characterize genes. I'm glad to see a judge agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I doubt this ruling will affect the Monsanto lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all patents are invalid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darn it!
After all it's their patent and no one would be silly enough to copy it so obviously the cancer could be traced back to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Patents
Unreasonably broad patents on discoveries have done just the opposite. They have stifled further improvements to technology for the benefit of society simply because of the effective stranglehold the beneficiaries of these "patents" have managed to garner.
This has been a long time in coming. Thanks be to an astute judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"it's hard not to argue against the idea that genes are not found in nature"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stifling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stifling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stifling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha! Like that'll last!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Genes and the Judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I created the animal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]