InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 253268
Next 10
Followers 62
Posts 6695
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 10/18/2003

Re: genisi post# 89193

Wednesday, 03/31/2010 8:39:11 AM

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:39:11 AM

Post# of 253268
MYGN "Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent" for BRCA1/BRCA2

This destroys MYGN's business model and takes away incentives for companies to develop diagnostics useful for personalized medicine. Back to "one size fits all" medication if you can't tell who gets the most benefit or harm from a particular drug.

Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent
By JOHN SCHWARTZ and ANDREW POLLACK
March 29, 2010

A federal judge on Monday struck down patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt the patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape the law of intellectual property

United States District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet issued the 152-page decision, which invalidated seven patents related to the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, whose mutations have been associated with cancer.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York joined with individual patients and medical organizations to challenge the patents last May: they argued that genes, products of nature, fall outside of the realm of things that can be patented. The patents, they argued, stifle research and innovation and limit testing options.

Myriad Genetics, the company that holds the patents with the University of Utah Research Foundation, asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it and makes it patentable. Such patents, it said, have been granted for decades; the Supreme Court upheld patents on living organisms in 1980. In fact, many in the patent field had predicted the courts would throw out the suit.

Judge Sweet, however, ruled that the patents were “improperly granted” because they involved a “law of nature.” He said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”
etc.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html

You don't pay royalties to use your genes in your body.
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.