The human genome contains over 20,000 genes. About 40 per cent of these have already been patented. Those patents are now "half-invalid". In the natural condition, genes are "mixed" together. They may be isolated and synthesised by various processes. The natural form is known as genetic DNA, or gDNA. The isolated, synthetic form is called complementary DNA, or cDNA. The court ruling held: "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent-eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent-eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Separating a gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention." A patent covering cDNA is thus, in effect, a process patent. A different process that isolates the same gene can work around the patent. Earlier US practice allowed patenting of both the cDNA and the gDNA, thus giving the patent holder a 20-year monopoly on all research into that gene.
"Rollbacks" on existing gDNA patents may have several effects. The earlier practice offered greater incentive for research because the patent holder could recoup profits over a long period. That moat has been lowered. The AMP and the majority of the academic establishment argue that sweeping patents effectively halt further research into a specific gene and allow patent holders to make exorbitant profits. The AMP declared the ruling was "a great step forward for the field of molecular pathology, for genomic science, and most importantly, for patients". Myriad Genetics' charges were considered particularly egregious, which is why it was targeted. Myriad was awarded nine patents in 1996 on the related BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations in these two genes trigger breast cancer. Myriad charges $4,300 for gene-screening tests for those two genes. (Actress Angelina Jolie took those tests before opting for her mastectomies.) By comparison, the entire human genome can now be sequenced for around $1,000. Limited DNA mapping kits are available off the shelf for $100. Researchers in John Hopkins and Yale claim they can provide free tests for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 now that the patent is annulled.
Apart from holding to the basic premise that patents should not cover natural substances or natural laws, the court's decision may have been influenced by academic opinion, as well as a declaration from the US Department of Justice that it does not support the patenting of naturally occurring genes. On balance, the ruling should provide for a more rational development of the biotechnology industry and lead to lower healthcare costs as well as faster medical breakthroughs.
You’ve hit your limit of 5 free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online
Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app