Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent

NY Times:

Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent

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.

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.”
The case could have far-reaching implications. About 20 percent of human genes have been patented, and multimillion-dollar industries have been built atop the intellectual property rights that the patents grant.

Well, hooray for Judge Sweet, I just hope his decision is upheld. I notice most of the reporting on this story are about the impact on biotech stocks.

I’m shocked. I guess sometimes there is some sanity left when it comes to patent law.

Finally, a judge that reads Michael Critchton novels. :smiley:

Note that you have the ACLU to thank for taking this case. :)

[quote="Swan, post:4, topic:192832"]
Note that you have the ACLU to thank for taking this case. :)

[/quote]

Heck, I'll be the first to admit that there is some good they do. When they're involved in cases that don't involve religion then they're often doing something good. It's usually just when they're involved in a case involving religion that they're at odds with us.

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:192832"]
NY Times:

Well, hooray for Judge Sweet, I just hope his decision is upheld. I notice most of the reporting on this story are about the impact on biotech stocks.

[/quote]

If this decision is upheld it would be a great and welcome change in Intellectual property law. Next we need our legislators to be brave enough to change the broad laws covering IP.

I have been a great fan of the ACLU for a long time. This is another notch on their belt.

This is great news. Now they need to start working on shortening the life of software/algorithm patents.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.