Myriad Mocks Supreme Court's Ruling On Gene Patents; Sues New Competitors Doing Breast Cancer Tests

from the chutzpah dept

Remember how, just a month ago, the Supreme Court had struck down gene patents in the Myriad case? If you don't recall, Myriad claimed, effectively, to have patented the isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are indicators of a likelihood for developing breast cancer. As such, they blocked anyone else from doing tests to find those two genes, and charged a whopping $4,000 or so for anyone who wanted the test. The Supreme Court, thankfully, tossed out those claims, noting that Myriad "did not create or alter any of the genetic information" in those genes, and that if found valid, it would "give it the exclusive right to isolate an individual’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes." That's obviously crazy, so it was good that the Supreme Court rejected those claims.

Immediately after that, a few competitors jumped into the space, offering BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing -- for significantly lower prices. And, Myriad wasted very little time in suing them all for patent infringement. Huh? The short version is that Myriad claims that the Supreme Court merely removed five total claims out of its patents, and it still has 515 remaining claims across 24 patents -- and these tests violate those:

As of the morning of June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs collectively had 24 patents containing 520 claims concerning two genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and methods of use and synthetic compositions of matter related thereto. On June 13, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that five patent claims covering isolated naturally occurring DNA were not patent-eligible, thereby reducing the overall patent estate to 24 patents and 515 patent claims. This case involves none of those five rejected claims.

The filing goes on to suggest that the Supreme Court ruling really didn't mean very much at all. In many ways, this really does appear to be Myriad giving the middle finger to the Supreme Court. As Tim Lee notes, if Myriad's interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling is correct, then the Court's ruling is effectively meaningless, because Myriad (and anyone else) can effectively write patents for genes by just changing how they structure the patents:

The patent claims the Supreme Court invalidated last month were “composition of matter” claims, covering the chemical structure of the BRCA genes. But Myriad’s patents also have “method” claims covering processes for diagnosing breast cancer. And while these patents use different language than the composition-of-matter patents the high court invalidated, their practical effect on the genetic testing market could be very similar.

Consider Patent 6,951,721, one of the patents cited by Myriad in its lawsuit against competitor Ambry Genetics. It claims the concept of diagnosing breast cancer by “determining the nucleotide sequence of the BRCA1 gene” from a “female individual” and then checking for mutations at specific points on the gene. The patent isn’t limited to any particular technology for isolating or sequencing the patient’s BRCA1 gene. So while it’s not technically a patent on the BRCA1 gene, it might as well be.

Of course, as you look over the details, it seems like Myriad is still going to be in trouble. Effectively, the claims it's relying on may appear to be more similar to a patent on the diagnostic process itself. But, that's a problem for Myriad, because in the big Prometheus Labs case, which the Supreme Court decided a year ago, and which it relied on in the Myriad case itself, medical diagnostics aren't patentable either.

It seems like Myriad is just trying to squeeze some more money out of these patents before it gets smacked down again. Of course, not everyone agrees. Dennis Crouch seems to think they have a "very strong case," while PubPat's outspoken Dan Ravicher feels otherwise:

PubPat director Dan Ravicher, e-mailing Ars from Beijing, described Myriad's new suits as a way to save face with Wall Street. He said the Supreme Court decision was a "total loss" for Myriad, and the synthetic cDNA they are focused on now is not needed for genetic testing. "I am confident they will lose these cases, too, so long as the defendants have the financial resources and institutional desire to fight," said Ravicher.

Of course, it's that last bit that's the challenge. Any such case will take years and millions of dollars. And, during that time some may just choose to settle, and if lower courts side with Myriad and issue injunctions it can be a big risk for the competitors in the space. The end result may work in Myriad's favor even if these cases are completely bogus: it's likely to scare away competitors, and keep the prices of its breast cancer gene tests very high, making it much more likely people will die. I do wonder how Myriad's execs look at themselves in the mirror. There is no reason for doing what they're doing other than to enrich themselves, while ensuring that more women will die from undetected breast cancer. Sickening.

While the FTC has claimed that it's going to go after patent trolls, this seems like another situation where they, along with the DOJ, should also look into Myriad. While it may not be a traditional "troll," there's certainly a strong argument to be made that the company is abusing patents in a manner this is likely to lead to much higher prices for consumers, especially following the Supreme Court rejecting the very premise that they're now relying on in these new lawsuits -- that no one but Myriad can offer tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2. One hopes that the FTC decides to expand its "investigations" into companies like Myriad.

Filed Under: brca1, brca2, breast cancer, cancer, gene patents, lawsuits, patents
Companies: myriad genetics

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gene Patents

from the good-news dept

Here's a bit of good news: the Supreme Court has effectively said you can't patent genes, though in typical Supreme Court fashion, it hedged a bit. Basically, they found that merely separating out naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, but that synthetically made "complementary DNA" or (cDNA) can be patentable. This case has been going on for quite some time, involving a company called Myriad Genetics, which isolated two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, where mutations indicate a high likelihood of developing breast cancer. Myriad then set up a very lucrative, extremely high priced set of tests to find those mutations and argued that others testing for those genes violated its patents -- because stopping breast cancer should be prohibitively expensive, apparently.

The unanimous ruling found that merely separating out naturally occurring genes cannot be patentable, because that would be ridiculous:

It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. Nor did Myriad create or alter the genetic structure of DNA. Instead, Myriad’s principal contribution was uncovering the precise location and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes within chromosomes 17 and 13. The question is whether this renders the genes patentable.

And that doesn't make much sense under patent law:

Myriad’s patents would, if valid, give it the exclusive right to isolate an individual’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (or any strand of 15 or more nucleotides within the genes)by breaking the covalent bonds that connect the DNA to the rest of the individual’s genome.

Myriad's main argument was that it basically had to put a lot of work into finding and isolating the genes, but the court noted that "Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy [the conditions for patent eligibility]."

The court also rejects the idea that just because the US Patent Office regularly granted gene patents for years, it should be allowed to continue to do so. The court does say that complementary DNA, made by Myriad, can be patentable:

... the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made. cDNA retains the naturally occurring exons of DNA, but it is distinct from the DNA from which it was derived. As a result, cDNA is not a “product of nature” and is patent eligible...

The court also points out that you can still patent a form of a test for DNA, if that method is innovative, but you can't patent the underlying genetic structure if it's naturally occurring. However, Myriad's method was not new or innovative. As the court notes, it was "well understood by geneticists at the time."

On the whole this is a good ruling that will invalidate a large number of bogus gene patents. While patent extremists are complaining that this will destroy the biotech field, more reasonable minds are pointing out that it should have little effect. I'd argue that, if anything, it may drive greater efforts in biotech, since companies can now do more exploration on genes without fearing being sued by someone who discovered and isolated a particular gene first -- and this should also lead to significantly cheaper genetic testing, creating even more opportunities for biotech firms to innovate on top of widespread genetic testing.

Filed Under: biotech, dna, gene patents, isolated dna, patent eligible, patents, supreme court
Companies: myriad genetics

How Long Before A Patent Kills A Hundred Million People?

from the is-this-really-wise? dept

Recent news that Angelina Jolie underwent a preventive double mastectomy because of her elevated risk of developing breast cancer has drawn attention to the Myriad Genetics case currently before the US Supreme Court, and to the whole area of gene patents. Myriad's monopoly has allowed it to set a high price for its tests -- $3000 -- and this is bound to have acted as a disincentive for those who were unable to afford such a sum. It is therefore quite likely that people have died as a result of Myriad's patents.

Here's another case where placing patenting above patients could lead to unnecessary deaths. It involves the SARS-like novel coronavirus that was first noted in Saudi Arabia, as this Reuters story explains:

The virus was identified in September last year, three months after a scientist took a sample from Saudi Arabia to the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands.

"There was a lag of three months where we were not aware of the discovery of the virus," Saudi Arabia's Deputy Health Minister Ziad Memish told the Geneva meeting.

He said it was taken out of the country without permission and Saudi Arabia only learned of its discovery from ProMED, a U.S.-based internet-based reporting system.

The Rotterdam-based Erasmus lab then patented the process for synthesizing the virus, meaning that anyone else who wanted to use their method to study it would have to pay the lab.

The patenting had delayed the development of diagnostic kits and serologic tests for the disease, Memish said.

Fortunately, the virus does not seem to have spread widely during that three-month delay, but next time we might not be so lucky. It seems bordering suicidal that concerns about patenting should over-ride health concerns, especially when a viral pandemic could potentially kill a hundred million people, as it did in 1918. Let's hope that the Supreme Court recognizes this as yet another reason not to allow patents on genes, and that this becomes part of a broader move to share freely vital knowledge that can save lives and alleviate suffering around the world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: gene patents, healthcare, netherlands, patents, saudi arabia

Supreme Court Seems Skeptical As Myriad Claims Gene Patents Should Exist, Because It Put A Lot Of Work Into Finding Them

from the sweat-of-the-brow dept

As many people know, on Monday, the Supreme Court finally heard the Myriad Genetics case, to look at whether or not genes are patentable subject matter. For the past few decades, the USPTO has generally argued that you can patent genes, which just seems crazy to most folks who point out that it's nuts to patent something that exists in your body. Supporters argue that they're trying to patent the process of isolating the gene, but that's just semantics. As you may recall, the appeals court, CAFC, had decided that genes are patentable because they're separate from your DNA. After that, the Supreme Court disallowed patents on medical diagnostics, and asked CAFC to reconsider the Myriad case with that as a guide. In response, CAFC stuck by its guns, insisting that genes are patentable.

With the big caveat that oral hearings are often meaningless in terms of how the Supreme Court eventually rules, the transcript and the various reports from those who were there suggest that there is at least some good skepticism about patenting genes. First off, we should point out that Myriad's CEO, Peter Meldrum posted a ridiculous op-ed at USA Today over the weekend, in which he argued that Myriad should be allowed to get patents because it worked hard to get them.

To create tests for hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer, our company and its investors spent more than $500 million over 17 years before we were able to recoup this investment.

Except, of course, patents aren't about the sweat of your brow and how much work you put into something. Nor -- despite Meldrum's silly claims -- are they about letting companies "own" their findings:

We think it is right for a company to be able to own its findings, just as pharmaceutical and other companies do all the time.

Except, of course, that's wrong. Because Meldrum does not want any other companies, who came up with the same thing independently, to "own" their "findings." Instead, he wants them to pay up or go out of business. For all of those companies, who may have spent even more money, that, apparently, doesn't matter at all, which highlights the complete hypocrisy of Meldrum's position. His argument only applies to his company, and not any other.

Furthermore, Myriad's critics made clear to point out that other labs were working on the same thing and were happily foregoing patent protection. The clear suggestion: it wasn't the patent that created the incentive, and the end result was that all of those other businesses were harmed. So Myriad's argument that it's helping researchers is doubtful.

We know that there were other labs looking for the BRCA genes and they had announced that they would not patent them if they were the first to find it. We also know that prior to the patent actually being issued, there were other labs doing BRCA testing and Myriad shut all that testing down. So we know in this particular case that problem would not have arisen.

But the point of the whole -- the whole point of the product of nature doctrine is that when you lock up a product of nature, it prevents industry from innovating and -- and making new discoveries. That's the reason we have the product of nature doctrine, is because there may be a million things you can do with the BRCA gene, but nobody but Myriad is allowed to look at it and that is impeding science rather than advancing it.

Justice Scalia followed that up by asking why would anyone invent anything if they can't get a patent. Of course, he might want to ask all of those labs that invested in the same process, but can't do anything about it. It seems they lose out, too.

In the end, there was clear skepticism from the Justices, but also a suggestion that they might try to punt the issue (again!) by ruling narrowly on particular issues, rather than by taking on the big question. We'll see how it all comes out in a few months...

Filed Under: gene patents, patentable subject matter, patents, supreme court, sweat of the brow
Companies: myriad genetics

Supreme Court Will Finally Say If Genes Are Patentable

from the can-they-punt-around-the-question? dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but after a long series of intermediary steps, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to weigh in on whether or not genes are patentable. For a bit of background on gene patents, back in 2010, a district court ruled in the Myriad Genetics case that gene patents were invalid, noting that they "are directed to a law of nature and were therefore improperly granted." A nice, clear and useful statement.

But, of course, it was just the first step in a long process. Myriad took the case to the appeals court for the federal circuit (CAFC), the notoriously patent friendly appeals court. The only surprise here was that the US Justice Department actually said it agreed that genes shouldn't be patentable (showing a potential disagreement within the administration, as the US Patent Office was not happy). End result? CAFC decided genes are patentable because they're "separate" from your DNA.

Then, before the Supreme Court could review that case, it ruled in a different case, the Prometheus v. Mayo case, involving medical diagnostics, which it ruled to be unpatentable subject matter. As expected, soon after that, the Supreme Court told CAFC to reconsider the gene patent case in light of its ruling in the medical diagnostics patents case. In August, CAFC said that it still believed genes were patentable.

And, of course, everyone fully expected this to end up before the Supreme Court again, which it will. Of interest, there were two questions appealed to the Supreme Court: (1) are human genes patentable and (2) did CAFC make a mistake in its application of the Myriad medical diagnostics patent ruling to this case -- but the Supreme Court has only agreed to review the first question: are human genes patentable? This is both good and bad. As we've seen all too often lately, the Supreme Court has bent over backwards to come up with ways to make very, very narrow rulings (see: Bilsky), effectively punting on the bigger questions, and leaving a ton of uncertainty in the market. By directly having just a single question over the patentability of genes on the table, hopefully it can issue a crisp and clear ruling (preferably rejecting those patents!)

The potential downside, though, is that if it does somehow find genes patentable, then it would mean that the CAFC ruling stands. Considering that we found the CAFC's reasoning troubling, this could be a larger problem. It would mean that CAFC can get away with dancing around the Myriad standard for rejecting patents, to leave in place potentially dangerous and ridiculous patents on elements of nature. This also means that we won't get a broader ruling on how to apply the Myriad standards, which actually might have been useful for rejecting software or business method patents. Either way, the most important thing at this stage is that the court outright reject gene patents.

Filed Under: diagnostic patents, gene patents, patents, supreme court
Companies: myriad genetics

Appeals Court Doubles Down: Genes Still Patentable

from the you-don't-own-your-genes dept

Well this is unfortunate, but not too surprising. After the Supreme Court rejected medical diagnostic patents in the Mayo case, it vacated the ruling by the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) on gene patents in the Myriad Genetics case, where CAFC had said genes are patentable, and asked it to redo the case in light of the Mayo decision. The ruling came out today, and CAFC more or less repeated what it said in the original ruling. The same panel of three judges effectively argued that Mayo had no real impact on what it said last year, and it was sticking by its decision. The Patently-O link above has a bit more detail, or you can read the full 106 pages (pdf and embedded below), which includes all three panelists entering their opinions (one dissenting). If you read last years, you'll find this one pretty similar, with just a few nods to why they were redoing the process.

All that really matters at this point is that isolated genes are still considered patentable. Even though people like James Watson, who was as part of the team that discovered DNA's structure, have argued that this kind of ruling is pure lunacy, the court is sticking by its position.

The case is likely far from over and there's a decent chance that it, too, will end up in front of the Supreme Court, where they'll have yet another chance to smack CAFC around for being overly infatuated with letting everything in the world be patentable. First up, though, will likely be an attempt to rehear the case "en banc" (with the full slate of CAFC judges, rather than just the three-judge panel). In other words, this is far from over, but if you're in the camp of folks who think the idea of patenting your genes is insanity, well, we're still living in an insane world.

Filed Under: cafc, dna, gene patents, genes, patents, supreme court
Companies: myriad genetics

James Watson, Co-Discoverer Of DNA's Structure, Says 'Patenting Human Genes Was Lunacy'

from the and-he-should-know dept

Techdirt has been covering the important Myriad Genetics case for a while. Although the CAFC decided that isolated genes could be patented, the Supreme Court has asked the appeals court to review the case in light of the former's rejection of medical diagnostic patents.

The importance of this case is highlighted by the amicus curiae brief filed by James Watson, co-discoverer with Francis Crick of the structure of DNA, for which they received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962 (along with Maurice Wilkins for related work.) Watson makes his views plain from the start:

what the Court misses, I fear, is the fundamentally unique nature of the human gene. Simply put, no other molecule can store the information necessary to create and propagate life the way DNA does. It is a chemical entity, but DNA’s importance flows from its ability to encode and transmit the instructions for creating humans. Life’s instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts.

Watson recalls discussions on the topic during the $3 billion Human Genome Project to sequence human DNA as completely as possible:

Even at the early stages of the project, we were concerned about the issue of patenting human genes. Most, although not all, eminent scientists recognized that human genes should not be monopolized by patents. I believed at the time -- and continue to believe -- that the issue of patenting human genes went to the very crux of whether the information encoded by human DNA should be freely available to the scientific community. Some twenty years ago, I explained that patenting human genes was lunacy, and I was not a lone voice.

He also points out some concrete problems with gene patents in terms of their impact on assays (tests) that involve multiple genes:

If each of the human genes used in a new multi-gene assay are subject to patents, I fear that useful tests requiring multiple human genes will be unnecessarily delayed, become prohibitively expensive, or, worse yet, never be made available to patients at all. For a new assay using hundreds of human genes, the sea of patents and patent applications would create hundreds, if not thousands, of individual obstacles to developing and commercializing the assay. The best way, in my view, to resolve this problem is to eliminate the unnecessary patenting of human genes.

As this makes clear, if gene patents are permitted, patent thickets are likely to develop, which will delay new tests, and make them more expensive.

Aside from his position as one of the people that discovered the structure of DNA in the first place, Watson has another reason why his views on patenting genes carry some weight. As he relates in a footnote to his submission to the court:

Amusingly, after I gave my first presentation of our DNA structure in June 1953, Leó Szilárd, the Hungarian physicist and inventor of the nuclear chain reaction, asked whether I would patent the structure. That, of course, was out of the question.

Like Tim Berners-Lee with the World Wide Web, Watson declined to patent one of the most important discoveries of all time because he believed it was the right thing to do. Let's hope the appeals court agrees with him when it hands down its decision on gene patents.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: dna, gene patents, james watson, lunacy, patents

Supreme Court Sends Case On Gene Patents Back To Appeals Court Following Rejection Of Diagnostic Patents

from the rethink-that-please dept

As we expected, following the Supreme Court's excellent rejection of medical diagnostic patents, it's now set aside the appeals court's ruling upholding gene patents, and asked the appeals court to review the case in light of its ruling last week. Again, this is not a surprise, but it's good that the court so quickly recognized that the two cases have similar issues, and that the appeals court ought to revisit the Myriad (gene patents) ruling so quickly. Hopefully, CAFC (the appeals court in question) will come to its senses and recognize that you can't patent genes. Either way, no matter what CAFC decides, expect that to also be appealed right back to the Supreme Court.

Filed Under: appeals court, cafc, diagnostic patents, dna, gene patents, genes, patents, remand, supreme court
Companies: mayo clinic, myriad genetics, prometheus laboratories

Huge Ruling: Court Rejects Medical Diagnostic Patent

from the a-step-forward dept

We've been covering the Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Labs case for a few years now, as it was a key case involving whether or not you could patent basic medial diagnostics -- i.e., can you patent basic science and limit doctors from doing such science without paying up. Tragically, in a series of decisions, the appeals court (CAFC) twice ruled that diagnostics are patentable, and we were particularly concerned that the oral hearings in the Supreme Court on this case seemed very narrowly focused. Of course, as we noted at the time, the oral hearings can be a red herring, as rulings often have little (if anything) to do with what is said during the oral hearings. This appears to be one such case.

Instead, it looks like we got a reasonably good (not great, but definitely pretty good) ruling from the Court effectively rejecting the concept of patenting basic medical diagnostics as laws of nature that are not patentable. It's always a good sign when Supreme Court IP case rulings are written by Justice Stephen Breyer -- as he remains the one Supreme Court Justice who seems to consistently, and instinctively, understand how excessive intellectual monopolies can cause much more harm than good. In this case, Breyer wrote the decision which, thankfully, was actually a unanimous decision, rejecting Prometheus' patents, and reiterating that laws of nature are not patentable.

In particular, the steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries.

Breyer's opinion is pretty clear and easy to read and makes some important points:

If a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself. A patent, for example, could not simply recite a law of nature and then add the instruction “apply the law.” Einstein, we assume, could not have patented his famous law by claiming a process consisting of simply telling linear accelerator operators to refer to the law to determine how much energy an amount of mass has produced (or vice versa). Nor could Archimedes have secured a patent for his famous principle of flotation by claiming a process consisting of simply telling boat builders to refer to that principle in order to determine whether an object will float.

One nice aside: the ruling also rejects the US government's own brief in the case, which effectively suggested that we get rid of the rule that laws of nature can't be patented, and instead just focus on whether or not the claims are new and non-obvious. As Breyer wrote, this "risks creating significantly greater legal uncertainty, while assuming that those sections can do work that they are not equipped to do."

Finally, at the end, Breyer highlights the costs and benefits of patents and how the arguments that more patents automatically lead to greater innovation is simply not the case:

Patent protection is, after all, a two-edged sword. On the one hand, the promise of exclusive rights provides monetary incentives that lead to creation, invention, and discovery. On the other hand, that very exclusivity can impede the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention, by, for example, raising the price of using the patented ideas once created, requiring potential users to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing patents and pending patent applications, and requiring the negotiation of complex licensing arrangements. At the same time, patent law’s general rules must govern inventive activity in many different fields of human endeavor, with the result that the practical effects of rules that reflect a general effort to balance these considerations may differ from one field to another....

In consequence, we must hesitate before departing from established general legal rules lest a new protective rule that seems to suit the needs of one field produce unforeseen results in another. And we must recognize the role of Congress in crafting more finely tailored rules where necessary.

All in all this is a good ruling. It's a little limited in suggesting that you could patent diagnostics that go further rather than just "drafting" on a natural law, but this is definitely a big step in the right direction. And as Patently-O notes, it's likely that this ruling will mean that the appeals court will now also be told to go back and re-evaluate its awful decision saying genes are patentable in the Myriad Genetics case. Hopefully, this ruling is a clear statement that not only are diagnostics not patentable, but genes aren't patentable either. If that's true it will be a huge boost to research in the biotech field, which won't be held back by expensive restrictions and tollbooths.

Of course, that's not the story you hear from the patent maximalists, who are arguing that this is horrible for the biotech community because it will mean fewer patents. But that ignores all of the good this does in making it easier to do research, to share results and lead to more real innovations built on basic laws of nature and facts, rather than locking up that knowledge.

Filed Under: biotech, diagnostics, gene patents, laws of nature, medical, patents
Companies: mayo clinic, myriad genetics, prometheus

UK Judges Think US Makes It Too Hard To Get Patents, Lower Patentability Bar To Show How It's Done

from the you-mean-we-need-even-more? dept

The US patent system famously covers "anything under the sun that is made by man," and is generally regarded as being more "patent friendly" than other jurisdictions around the world. So it comes as something of a surprise to hear of the UK out-doing the US is this respect:

In a unanimous decision, the [UK Supreme] court determined that US utility doctrine creates an unduly high bar of patentability.

The reasoning – or rather lack of it – is just as surprising:

Thus, rather than requiring proof of specific, credible, and substantial utility at the time of filing, the UK court agreed that HGS's genetic sequence coding for Neutrokine-α was patentable even though there was no known use of the protein at the time the patent application was filing. The patent did not reveal how the protein "could be used to solve any particular problem" nor did it identify "any disease or condition which it could be used to diagnose or treat."

It's bad enough that naturally-occurring genomic sequences are being patented at all – sequences that certainly weren't invented by anyone. But allowing those patents without even requiring "proof of specific, credible, and substantial utility at the time of filing" is just insane: it will open the floodgates for even more speculative filings on DNA sequences in the hope that someone, someday will come up with a use for them. Except that if they did, they'd presumably be hit with a patent infringement suit. So how does that promote innovation?

The other danger, of course, is that the US judges might feel that their honor is a stake, and lower the US patentability bar even further to undercut those presumptuous British lords...

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: gene patents, patents, uk, us