Supreme Court Strikes Down Isolated DNA Claims; Permits cDNA Claims

USSupremeCourtWestFacadeLast week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.  Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that isolated DNA sequences are not patent eligible.  The Court did permit the patent claims to isolated cDNA to stand.

The gene patent saga filed by the ACLU on behalf of a large number of plaintiffs has finally come to an end.  After 4 years of litigation and 2 trips to the Supreme Court, the law is that isolated DNA is no longer eligible for patent protection.  cDNA, however, remains patentable.

Given the recent Supreme Court decisions on patent eligibility under § 101, the only surprising thing about the opinion was that they did not strike down all of the claims.  Myriad retains its claims to methods of screening patients for the genetic mutation that indicates a higher propensity for breast and ovarian cancers, and it retains its claims to complementary DNA (cDNA).

The opinion did not seem to conflate patent eligibility with novelty or obviousness as in Mayo v. Prometheus.  The opinion in Myriad started with the statutory language and then turned to the judicial exceptions for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”  The Court then quoted extensively from Mayo to expound on these exceptions:

without [these] exception[s], there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would “tie up” the use of [basic tools of scientific and technological work] and thereby “inhibit future innovation premised upon them.”

This idea from Mayo is that patents inhibit research and development instead of encouraging it.  It has been thought for years that one of the purposes of patents is to provide an incentive to innovate.  These statements bring that premise into question.

And, of course, by definition a patent will “tie up” the claimed subject matter.  That’s the whole point:  to be able to exclude others from copying the claimed invention.

In the analysis of the isolated DNA, the Court held that Myriad’s principal contribution was uncovering the precise location and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.  “Myriad did not create anything,” according to the Court.  “[S]eparating [the] gene[s] from [the] surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”  The PTO apparently thought otherwise for about 30 years.  The Supreme Court whisks it all away without providing support for the contention that is does not constitute an act of invention.

The Court did recognize that cDNA is not naturally occurring.  It may retain some characteristics of the isolated DNA, but it is generally created in the lab and does not exist in the human body.  Therefore, cDNA is still patent eligible.

Finally, the Court seemed to try to give some hope and encouragement to the biotechnology industry:

  1. The Court noted that no method claims were included in its opinion.  Innovative methods of manipulating the genes would still be patent eligible.
  2. The Court noted that new applications of knowledge about particular genes may still remain patent eligible.
  3. The Court noted that it provided no opinion on the patent eligibility of DNA in which the order of the naturally occurring nucleotide sequences has been altered.

On the third point, the Court did not provide guidance.  How much alteration is required for patent eligibility?

Justice Scalia wrote a rather bizarre opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.

This is something to keep in mind regarding these cases.  The judges and juries who must ultimately rule on them will very rarely understand the science behind them.  They are usually not this candid in admitting their lack of understanding.

Implications

How will this opinion affect the biotechnology industry? Given this and other recent Supreme Court opinions on patentable subject matter, it seems that patents in the area of personalized medicine will be difficult to obtain and enforce. Many biotechnology companies are working on ways to grow organs that can be transplanted into the human body to replace defective organs. The goal is for these organs to be as similar to the natural organs as possible. This opinion seems to indicate that such organs could not be patented.  HT:  IPWatchdog.

Given the extensive costs of research in these areas, will companies continue to make large scale investments? The Supreme Court seems to be arguing, somewhat contrary to historical understandings, that patent inhibit rather than encourage research. Monopoly profits for the limited term of the patent are set to encourage companies to make large initial upfront investments.

About these ads

6 Responses to “Supreme Court Strikes Down Isolated DNA Claims; Permits cDNA Claims”

  1. Tracy Fischer Says:

    While the Supreme Court’s decision to forbid patents on human genes knocked out Myriad Genetics ‘ long-guarded patent on two genes linked to breast cancer , the Utah-based company’s stock still rose soon after the news broke. That bit of investor optimism may have been due to the court’s decision to allow patenting of cDNA, which they called “synthetically created” – though it’s unclear if that optimism is warranted, doctors pointed out.

  2. Kelsey Q. Shepard Says:

    The new ruling doesn’t cover all DNA. It’s still perfectly legal to patent synthetic DNA, and the court documents referred specifically to complimentary DNA (aka cDNA).

  3. silver price Says:

    The new ruling doesn’t cover all DNA. It’s still perfectly legal to patent synthetic DNA, and the court documents referred specifically to complimentary DNA (aka cDNA).

  4. Betty Cochran Says:

    Thomas noted there are still ways for Myriad to make money off its discovery. “Had Myriad created an innovative method of manipulating genes while searching for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, it could possibly have sought a method patent,” he said. And he noted that the case before the court did not include patents on the application of knowledge about the two genes.

  5. Myriad Saga Continues | INVENTIVE STEP Says:

    […] when you thought that last month’s Supreme Court ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. might be the end of the gene patent debate, new developments are changing that […]

  6. Supreme Court to Review CLS Bank | INVENTIVE STEP Says:

    […] Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s recent forays into patentable subject matter have not added clarity to this area of law.  Bilski didn’t really change anything or give any real guidance for business method patents.  In Prometheus, the Court seriously confused patentable subject matter with obviousness and patentability.  They did do a bit better with isolated DNA in Myriad. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: