U.S. Supreme Court petitioned to review AMP, et al. lawsuit on gene patents

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a case that challenges the validity of patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

The and the Public Patent Foundation originally filed the lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of professional organizations led by the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), and representing over 150,000 physicians and scientists, against licensees and Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, as well as the U.S. . Other plaintiffs included individual physicians and scientists, genetic counselors, women's groups and patients.

The lawsuit argued that as "products of nature", genes are ineligible for patenting under Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act. In addition, the suit asserted that process claims involving comparison of mutated and normal sequences are also invalid. Finally, the plaintiffs challenged the issuance of the patents on Constitutional grounds, contending that the encumbrances placed by the patents on scientific inquiry and medical care violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 and the First Amendment.

In March, 2010 a district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling that and the sequence comparison claims are not patent eligible under Section 101. A divided Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last July reversed in part, holding that the at issue are patent eligible as "isolated ." However, the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's finding of invalidity of the comparison, or correlation, claims as unpatentable mental processes.

The patents granted to Myriad give the company the right to exclude others from sequencing the genes or performing other diagnostic tests on BRCA1 and BRCA2. In effect they grant Myriad a monopoly on both medical and research testing for familial breast and ovarian cancer caused by these genes.

"That pathologists can be excluded from 'looking at' or 'reading' a patient's DNA sequence to characterize or assess the risk for disease is akin to prohibiting a physician from taking a patient's pulse to see if his or her heart is beating," said Mary Steele Williams, Executive Director of the Association for . "I think that the fact that patients can be prevented from accessing the information contained in their DNA would offend most people's conceptions of individual rights and personal liberty."

AMP is optimistic the Supreme Court will follow its precedents that render natural products, natural laws, and natural phenomena ineligible for patent protection. Only by upholding the prohibition on patenting laws of nature can the patent system foster competition and advancement in test development, and thereby usher in the era of personalized medicine.

"Gene patents are a barrier to innovation in molecular testing because they grant monopolies in diagnostic testing for key biologic relationships in inherited diseases and cancer," said Roger D. Klein, MD, JD, AMP Professional Relations Committee Chair. "One cannot invent around gene patents. Excluding medical practitioners from independently accessing the information contained within the genes of their patients, and the subsequent loss of competition this implies, results in higher test prices, decreased patient access, and diminished innovation in the development of new test methods. The overall effects on patient care are resoundingly negative."

AMP is deeply concerned about potential restrictions on physician and patient access to information that could inform care, and the chilling effect gene patents have on medical research.

"Because information about gene sequences is so fundamental to elucidating the cause, progression and treatment of disease, patent holders can essentially gain ownership of the understanding of some diseases and of certain areas of patient care itself," said Iris Schrijver, AMP President. "Even the possibility of enforcement by a holder creates a chilling effect, as pathologist s become reluctant to perform testing procedures that could benefit patients."

Provided by Association for Molecular Pathology

5 /5 (2 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Myriad can patent breast cancer genes: US court

Jul 30, 2011

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled in favor of Myriad Genetics after a legal battle over whether the US company could keep its patent on genes linked to an inherited form of breast cancer.

US judge strikes down patent on cancer genes

Mar 29, 2010

(AP) -- In a ruling with potentially far-reaching implications for the patenting of human genes, a judge on Monday struck down a company's patents on two genes linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 04, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

Recommended for you

Peruvian frog juice drinkers laud health benefits

Nov 18, 2014

Frogs from Peru's Lake Titicaca are the main ingredient in a juice blend that some Andean cultures believe has the power to cure asthma, bronchitis, sluggishness and a low sex drive.

User comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.