Myriad Genetics Loses Again: Court Refuses To Grant Preliminary Injunction Against Rival Genetic Testing Company
from the battling-cancer dept
In June last year we reported on a major ruling from the Supreme Court, which effectively said that you can't patent genes. That ripped a huge hole in Myriad Genetics' monopoly on testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that are linked to breast cancer, but that didn't stop it suing some of the new entrants to this market. In particular, it asked a federal judge in Utah to order one of them, Ambry Genetics, to stop providing its gene testing service for those genes. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief opposing Myriad's motion, together with a number of other organizations. Here's the latest development in the case:
Yesterday, a federal district court judge in Utah rejected Myriad's motion. Judge Shelby found that Myriad had failed to establish that it was likely to win its lawsuit against Ambry, because there are substantial questions about whether Myriad's patent claims improperly monopolize products of nature, laws of nature, and abstract ideas.
That last point is important. As the ACLU explains:
While Myriad's lawsuits can proceed -- for now -- patients continue to have the right to choose other BRCA genetic testing providers. They can obtain a second opinion before making life-changing medical decisions. And they can decide which laboratory will have their data.Myriad has used its patents over the genes to create the largest database in the world about BRCA genetic mutations and their medical significance and refuses to share that information with the scientific community.
That underlines another huge problem with gene patents: they allow monopoly-holders to lock up key medical information that could have been used by researchers around the world to advance knowledge and come up with new treatments. Far from accelerating innovation, as apologists for patents like to claim, they throw huge roadblocks in its way. It's yet another reason why the Supreme Court's decision to strike down gene patents should be celebrated.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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: brca, brca1, brca2, dna, gene patents, genetic testing, injunction, patents
Companies: ambry, myriad genetics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Because we care."
"Oh, not because of the bonuses we give each other at the end of the year?"
"Shut up you fool, someone could be listening. Now look into the spinning spiral disk."
"I'm looking...looking..."
"You will not remember about bonuses but only that we care."
Forget bonuses...only we care."
"Good, good."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whenever anyone says something about spinning disks, I always think of this scene from Hairspray:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CxLACIpphU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should never have been a question. Then again, neither should; "Is a corporation a person?" I thought slavery was dead, yet you have people "owning" a "person."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Corporate Personhood
Why do people continue to take things out of context? I would think that on this site, the commenters would know better. Most espouse the notion that context is everything. I guess that only matters when it's something you agree with, all others be damned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders,[1] and may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not-for-profit business."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
You needed it defined as a "personhood" to understand what is meant here? It protects the shareholders. You cannot sue them. You sue the corporation and the shareholders assets are safe, they still have a home with a full six-car garage. Employees can say they were just doing their job, following orders. These people aren't responsible, the corporation did it.
P.S. Separate legal entity did not come about after "corporate personhood," it was the original intent. Did someone take it out of context so the courts had to supply new definitions and clarity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But that's a far cry from what people object to when they talk about corporate personhood. It's about corporations making claims that they have the same legal rights as you and me, and should. It's about corporations that have vastly larger resources at their disposal than any individual person being able to use them indiscriminately to work against the interests of actual people, such as by spending millions to influence elections and government regulations.
It's about abusing the notion of protection from liability to protect not only shareholders, but the actual decision makers who should be held liable. I don't buy that "Employees can say they were just doing their job, following orders. These people aren't responsible, the corporation did it." That's a bunch of crap. It wasn't valid at Nuremburg, and it shouldn't be valid at Monsanto, Microsoft or Goldman Sachs. If you do something that's obviously evil and hurt lots of people, it doesn't matter why you did it, you did something evil and you deserve to be smacked down by the long arm of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't sue Nature.
I don't thick they can Sue nature as it's gonna sue(read:screw them over) them for taking away it's Patent that it held since pre-historic times... XD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]