Nu Kua
Aug 2nd, 2011, 6:41 AM
I find it creepy to patent human genes. But, whatevs.
Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/01/federal-court-rules-human-genes-can-be-patented/) reports that a federal court has ruled human genes are not a product of nature and therefore can be patented:
...
The court held (PDF) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1406.pdf) that Myriad Genetics can patent two human genes used to predict the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women, overturning a previous decision by a federal district (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html) court in March 2010. But the court ruled that the method used to determine a patient's risk of cancer was not patentable.
The lawsuit, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al., was filed in May 2009 on behalf of researchers, women patients, cancer survivors and scientific associations against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which hold the patents on the genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2.
The lawsuit was filed by the Public Patent Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, who claimed patents on human genes violate the First Amendment and patent law because genes are "products of nature."
The court disagreed...
I'm not getting the argument... the gene is from a part of nature but by itself is no longer a part of nature... huh?
..."In this case, the claimed isolated DNA molecules do not exist as in nature within a physical mixture to be purified," Judge Alan D. Lourie wrote for the majority. "They have to be chemically cleaved from their chemical combination with other genetic materials. In other words, in nature, isolated DNAs are covalently bonded to such other materials. Thus, when cleaved, an isolated DNA molecule is not a purified form of a natural material, but a distinct chemical entity. In fact, some forms of isolated DNA require no purification at all, because DNAs can be chemically synthesized directly as isolated molecules."
Judge Kimberly A. Moore added in a concurring opinion that isolated DNA "is a distinct molecule with different physical characteristics than the naturally occurring" DNA found in nature, noting that the DNA found in nature "is part of a much larger structure, the chromosome."...
The dissenting opinion:
...In his dissenting opinion, Judge William C. Bryson advocated the "common sense view" that "patents are for inventions" and "a human gene is not an invention." He also warned that "if sustained the court’s decision will likely have broad consequences, such as preempting methods for whole-genome sequencing."...
yeah...
Before too long, they'll be for sale to the highest bidder- scruples be damned.
Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/01/federal-court-rules-human-genes-can-be-patented/) reports that a federal court has ruled human genes are not a product of nature and therefore can be patented:
...
The court held (PDF) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1406.pdf) that Myriad Genetics can patent two human genes used to predict the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women, overturning a previous decision by a federal district (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html) court in March 2010. But the court ruled that the method used to determine a patient's risk of cancer was not patentable.
The lawsuit, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al., was filed in May 2009 on behalf of researchers, women patients, cancer survivors and scientific associations against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which hold the patents on the genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2.
The lawsuit was filed by the Public Patent Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, who claimed patents on human genes violate the First Amendment and patent law because genes are "products of nature."
The court disagreed...
I'm not getting the argument... the gene is from a part of nature but by itself is no longer a part of nature... huh?
..."In this case, the claimed isolated DNA molecules do not exist as in nature within a physical mixture to be purified," Judge Alan D. Lourie wrote for the majority. "They have to be chemically cleaved from their chemical combination with other genetic materials. In other words, in nature, isolated DNAs are covalently bonded to such other materials. Thus, when cleaved, an isolated DNA molecule is not a purified form of a natural material, but a distinct chemical entity. In fact, some forms of isolated DNA require no purification at all, because DNAs can be chemically synthesized directly as isolated molecules."
Judge Kimberly A. Moore added in a concurring opinion that isolated DNA "is a distinct molecule with different physical characteristics than the naturally occurring" DNA found in nature, noting that the DNA found in nature "is part of a much larger structure, the chromosome."...
The dissenting opinion:
...In his dissenting opinion, Judge William C. Bryson advocated the "common sense view" that "patents are for inventions" and "a human gene is not an invention." He also warned that "if sustained the court’s decision will likely have broad consequences, such as preempting methods for whole-genome sequencing."...
yeah...
Before too long, they'll be for sale to the highest bidder- scruples be damned.