by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
QUOTE:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled
Thursday that human genes cannot be patented,
a decision with both immediate benefits for some
breast and ovarian cancer patients and long-
lasting repercussions for biotechnology research.
The decision represents a victory for cancer
patients, researchers and geneticists who
claimed that a single company's patent raised
costs, restricted research and sometimes forced
women to have breasts or ovaries removed
without sufficient facts or second opinions.
But the court held out a lifeline to Myriad
Genetics, the company with an exclusive patent
on the isolated form of genes that can foretell an
increased genetic risk of cancer. The justices
said it can patent a type of DNA that goes
beyond extracting the genes from the body.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the decision for a
unanimous court. "Myriad did not create
anything," Thomas said. "To be sure, it found an
important and useful gene, but separating that
gene from its surrounding genetic material is not
an act of invention."
The complex scientific case was perhaps the
most important on the high court's calendar other
than its more celebrated cases involving same-
sex marriage, voting rights and affirmative action.
And unlike those cases, which are expected to
divide the court sharply along ideological lines,
the controversial concept of gene patenting gave
all nine justices something to agree on.
The decision was based on past patent cases
before the high court in which the justices ruled
that forces of nature, as opposed to products of
invention, are not patent-eligible.
Since 1984, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office has granted more than 40,000 patents tied
to genetic material. Armed with those patents,
Myriad has tested more than 1 million women
since the late 1990s for mutations that often lead
to breast and ovarian cancer.
Most women who want testing must pay its price
— $3,340 for the breast cancer analysis and
$700 for an additional test that picks up a genetic
link in about 10% of women who test negative
the first time. Myriad officials say about 95% of
its patients receive insurance coverage, often
without co-payments, so that most patients pay
only about $100.
Myriad and a broad array of industry trade
groups argued that without patent protection,
research and development would dry up. Doctors,
geneticists, women's health groups and cancer
patients contended that competition would lower
prices, improve outcomes and lead to more
discoveries.
The two sides had battled to a draw in lower
courts: A federal district court in New York sided
with the patent's challengers, while a divided
court of appeals that handles patent cases ruled
for the company.
During oral argument in April, the court was
presented with opposite interpretations of
Myriad's contribution to genetic research.
Christopher Hansen, the lawyer for the American
Civil Liberties Union representing the patent's
challengers, said Myriad had invented "nothing."
Myriad's attorney, Gregory Castanias, said the
company created "a new molecule that had
never been known to the world."
The justices generally agreed that Myriad
deserved credit for its process of isolating the
gene and its use – but not for the gene itself. "In
isolation, it has no value," Justice Sonia
Sotomayor said. "It's just nature sitting there."
Thomas' decision was slightly more diplomatic.
"We merely hold that genes and the information
they encode are not patent-eligible ... simply
because they have been isolated from the
surrounding genetic material," he said.
But the compromise that emerged Thursday was
evident during that 65-minute debate. Several of
the more conservative justices said a complete
denial of patent rights could jeopardize
investments by other biotechnology companies —
and that could limit progress on a range of
research, from agriculture to the environment."
UNQUOTE
QUOTE:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled
Thursday that human genes cannot be patented,
a decision with both immediate benefits for some
breast and ovarian cancer patients and long-
lasting repercussions for biotechnology research.
The decision represents a victory for cancer
patients, researchers and geneticists who
claimed that a single company's patent raised
costs, restricted research and sometimes forced
women to have breasts or ovaries removed
without sufficient facts or second opinions.
But the court held out a lifeline to Myriad
Genetics, the company with an exclusive patent
on the isolated form of genes that can foretell an
increased genetic risk of cancer. The justices
said it can patent a type of DNA that goes
beyond extracting the genes from the body.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the decision for a
unanimous court. "Myriad did not create
anything," Thomas said. "To be sure, it found an
important and useful gene, but separating that
gene from its surrounding genetic material is not
an act of invention."
The complex scientific case was perhaps the
most important on the high court's calendar other
than its more celebrated cases involving same-
sex marriage, voting rights and affirmative action.
And unlike those cases, which are expected to
divide the court sharply along ideological lines,
the controversial concept of gene patenting gave
all nine justices something to agree on.
The decision was based on past patent cases
before the high court in which the justices ruled
that forces of nature, as opposed to products of
invention, are not patent-eligible.
Since 1984, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office has granted more than 40,000 patents tied
to genetic material. Armed with those patents,
Myriad has tested more than 1 million women
since the late 1990s for mutations that often lead
to breast and ovarian cancer.
Most women who want testing must pay its price
— $3,340 for the breast cancer analysis and
$700 for an additional test that picks up a genetic
link in about 10% of women who test negative
the first time. Myriad officials say about 95% of
its patients receive insurance coverage, often
without co-payments, so that most patients pay
only about $100.
Myriad and a broad array of industry trade
groups argued that without patent protection,
research and development would dry up. Doctors,
geneticists, women's health groups and cancer
patients contended that competition would lower
prices, improve outcomes and lead to more
discoveries.
The two sides had battled to a draw in lower
courts: A federal district court in New York sided
with the patent's challengers, while a divided
court of appeals that handles patent cases ruled
for the company.
During oral argument in April, the court was
presented with opposite interpretations of
Myriad's contribution to genetic research.
Christopher Hansen, the lawyer for the American
Civil Liberties Union representing the patent's
challengers, said Myriad had invented "nothing."
Myriad's attorney, Gregory Castanias, said the
company created "a new molecule that had
never been known to the world."
The justices generally agreed that Myriad
deserved credit for its process of isolating the
gene and its use – but not for the gene itself. "In
isolation, it has no value," Justice Sonia
Sotomayor said. "It's just nature sitting there."
Thomas' decision was slightly more diplomatic.
"We merely hold that genes and the information
they encode are not patent-eligible ... simply
because they have been isolated from the
surrounding genetic material," he said.
But the compromise that emerged Thursday was
evident during that 65-minute debate. Several of
the more conservative justices said a complete
denial of patent rights could jeopardize
investments by other biotechnology companies —
and that could limit progress on a range of
research, from agriculture to the environment."
UNQUOTE
Comment