Myriad can patent breast cancer genes: US court

July 30, 2011 by Kerry Sheridan

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.

The ruling overturns a lower court's decision and allows the Utah-based company to maintain its patents on the isolated , known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, despite complaints from rights groups who say it creates an unfair monopoly and limits women's health choices.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided such patents on isolated could be held, in accordance with the "longstanding practice" of the (PTO), over the past 29 years.

The 2-1 court ruling also said the company cannot patent five broadly framed processes of comparing or analyzing because they were "abstract mental processes."

However, a Myriad spokeswoman said that aspect of the ruling did not hurt the company's ability to test for the isolated genes.

"Our intellectual property position today is no different than before the ACLU () even brought this case," Rebecca Chambers, head of investor relations, told AFP.

She said the company still has 232 method claims, or steps that explain exactly how to test, "as part of 23 patents which describe how we go about doing the BRAC analysis test that were not even part of this lawsuit."

Backed by pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, Myriad obtained a series of US patents in the mid-1990s on two genes -- BRCA1 and BRCA2 -- strongly associated with hereditary forms of breast and ovarian cancer in women.

According to the , 12 percent of women in the general population will develop in their lifetimes, compared to 60 percent of women who have inherited a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2.

With ovarian cancer, 1.4 percent of women may be diagnosed in their lifetimes but the number rises to 15-40 percent of women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

The patents held by Myriad mean the company owns the "exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and to prevent any researcher from even looking at the genes without first getting permission from Myriad," the ACLU said in a statement.

A key complaint in the lawsuit, was filed in 2009 by a coalition of patient advocacy and medical groups represented by the ACLU, was that the company wielded too much control over the tests and costs.

"Myriad's monopoly on the BRCA genes makes it impossible for women to access alternate tests or get a comprehensive second opinion about their results. It also allows Myriad to charge a high price for its tests," ACLU lawyer Sandra Park told AFP.

The ACLU was consulting with its clients and would make a decision soon about whether to appeal to the full 12-member court of appeals for the federal circuit or to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, she said.

Analyst Robert Cook-Deegan of the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy at Duke University in North Carolina, said he expected the legal battle would continue over whether human DNA is something that can be patented and owned.

"This is probably not the last stage in this game," he said. "The fact that all three judges have given very different lines of reasoning does suggest to me that there is going to be another round to go here."

If the matter reaches the Supreme Court, he said the outcome would be "very unpredictable."

But Friday's ruling was expected to make few waves in the biotech industry or on the US stock market.

"The impact of the federal circuit decision in the Myriad case on the biotech industry should be minimal," said biotech intellectual property lawyer Roberte Marie Makowski.

"At least for now, this decision provides a level of certainty for the industry's existing patents and research endeavors."

Biotech companies first began patenting genes and genetic material in the 1980s. More than 20 percent of the 24,000 human gene patents granted since then have been in the United States.

A gene inside the human body cannot be patented. But once it is identified, removed and isolated, a company can apply for exclusive rights to exploit it for commercial purposes.

Only a handful of countries -- including Brazil and Chile -- do not allow patents on genes in any form.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Study prompts new ideas on cancers' origins

December 16, 2017
Rapidly dividing, yet aberrant stem cells are a major source of cancer. But a new study suggests that mature cells also play a key role in initiating cancer—a finding that could upend the way scientists think about the ...

What does hair loss have to teach us about cancer metastasis?

December 15, 2017
Understanding how cancer cells are able to metastasize—migrate from the primary tumor to distant sites in the body—and developing therapies to inhibit this process are the focus of many laboratories around the country. ...

Cancer immunotherapy may work better in patients with specific genes

December 15, 2017
Cancer cells arise when DNA is mutated, and these cells should be recognized as "foreign" by the immune system. However, cancer cells have found ways to evade detection by the immune system.

Scientists pinpoint gene to blame for poorer survival rate in early-onset breast cancer patients

December 15, 2017
A new study led by scientists at the University of Southampton has found that inherited variation in a particular gene may be to blame for the lower survival rate of patients diagnosed with early-onset breast cancer.

Scientists unlock structure of mTOR, a key cancer cell signaling protein

December 14, 2017
Researchers in the Sloan Kettering Institute have solved the structure of an important signaling molecule in cancer cells. They used a new technology called cryo-EM to visualize the structure in three dimensions. The detailed ...

'Bet hedging' explains the efficacy of many combination cancer therapies

December 14, 2017
The efficacy of many FDA-approved cancer drug combinations is not due to synergistic interactions between drugs, but rather to a form of "bet hedging," according to a new study published by Harvard Medical School researchers ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nanotech_republika_pl
5 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2011
Does that mean that when somebody will have their _full_ genome scanned, they will have the results presented to them with Swiss cheese holes, the patented gene holes? Because if they do have the full info then there always be the info available on Internet to interpret the patent genes. I don't need a doctor's 2nd opinion to interpret the data if it is a standard algorithm.

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.