Appeals Court Doubles Down: Genes Still Patentable

from the you-don't-own-your-genes dept

Well this is unfortunate, but not too surprising. After the Supreme Court rejected medical diagnostic patents in the Mayo case, it vacated the ruling by the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) on gene patents in the Myriad Genetics case, where CAFC had said genes are patentable, and asked it to redo the case in light of the Mayo decision. The ruling came out today, and CAFC more or less repeated what it said in the original ruling. The same panel of three judges effectively argued that Mayo had no real impact on what it said last year, and it was sticking by its decision. The Patently-O link above has a bit more detail, or you can read the full 106 pages (pdf and embedded below), which includes all three panelists entering their opinions (one dissenting). If you read last years, you'll find this one pretty similar, with just a few nods to why they were redoing the process.

All that really matters at this point is that isolated genes are still considered patentable. Even though people like James Watson, who was as part of the team that discovered DNA's structure, have argued that this kind of ruling is pure lunacy, the court is sticking by its position.

The case is likely far from over and there's a decent chance that it, too, will end up in front of the Supreme Court, where they'll have yet another chance to smack CAFC around for being overly infatuated with letting everything in the world be patentable. First up, though, will likely be an attempt to rehear the case "en banc" (with the full slate of CAFC judges, rather than just the three-judge panel). In other words, this is far from over, but if you're in the camp of folks who think the idea of patenting your genes is insanity, well, we're still living in an insane world.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    How the USPTO works

    So, based on how the USPTO works these days, I can patent all isolated genes with one very broadly worded patent. Should work, no?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Jeremy, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:25am

    Well then I'd better hurry and patent all ~30,000 of mine so I'm not infringing. I promise to any of you who don't get your genetic sequence patented in time that I won't sue you out of existence (literally).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:29am

    Re: How the USPTO works

    Might be a little dicey, but if you add 'on the internet' somewhere in there it'll be almost guaranteed to get accepted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Jeremy, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: How the USPTO works

    I thought the new phrase trending through the USPTO was "on a mobile device"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    i have hidden my genes in a box in my backyard where the feds wont find it so i can infringe all i want

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    The Mighty Buzzard (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    Re:

    Plus then if your kids give you any lip later in life, you can sue them for patent infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    is there actually anything that these thick fuckers think isn't patentable?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re: How the USPTO works

    nah, "u" couldn't but if u say got a bunch of people(or u know names) and all submitted the same broad patent over and over "one of u" could hit the jackpot

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Re:

    the plan to abuse the system?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:52am

    I am going to patent wood. That way I can retire tomorrow as pretty much everyone is the world is infringing my patent and they have to pay me all the money they have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 10:58am

    Re: How the USPTO works

    That should be impossible for any judge with even the slightest knowledge of genetics or any real expert testimony from a practitioner. It is pretty specific patents so the primary concern is the the "invention hight" and that is actually a very relevant argument against it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    I am going to patent wood.


    Oh, no, then I'll have to pay you a royalty every morning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    tracker1 (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:16am

    This is lunacy...

    An event in nature should not be patentable... A specific method of influencing said events could be. In this instance the gene itself, or it's effects in various states should not be patentable... that is simply observation. A specific, proven technique for changing said gene in a living being should probably be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: How the USPTO works

    Well, as long as they are my friends we can agree to split the proceeds.

    Loads of moneyyy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Loki, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 12:43pm

    Re:

    I'm sure Monsanto already has some patents, or at least patents in the works, on specific types of genetically modified wood. Then it's only a matter of time before their seeds supplant the ones you have patents on, and make yours useless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    SilverBlade, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 12:52pm

    So what would happen if someone was born with genes that are patented already? Does that person then become property of the company that holds the patent? Does the company have the legal right to 'sue' that person for being born with those genes?

    I would hope to God that companies wouldn't be stupid enough to do this incase this scenario were to happen, but I've seen over and over again, companies would in fact try to sue someone who just *dared* to be born with a gene that was patented.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    Argh!

    I'm gonna pirate ye genes and makes me an unauthorized clone!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    DH's Love Child (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:32pm

    What purpose does the CAFC actually serve?

    Seems to me that they get shot down by SCOTUS much more frequently than they are upheld.. Basically they ALWAYS seem to side with the patent holder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:38pm

    If you're creating a new gene that's one thing. But trying to patent ANY existing gene should be thrown out on the basis of obviousness. Everyone skilled in the craft knows how to sequence genes.

    "The dissent indicates that “elemental lithium (like other elements) would not be patentable subject matter, even if it could only be extracted from nature through an isolation process.” But the isolation here is not a simple separation from extraneous materials, but conversion to a different molecular entity."

    The court doesn't think extracting lithium from a lithium compound converts it to a "different molecular entity"? They think it's just a matter of a "simple seperation from extraneous materials?" Excuse me, but did they never TAKE chemistry? Do they think they can extract the lithium by just putting it through a flour sifter? At their next session, instead of a bottle of water, perhaps they should be provided with a bottle of hydrogen and a bottle of oxygen. Same thing, right?

    "The dissent finally attempts to analogize the creation of the isolated DNAs in this case to the removal of a kidney from the human body, indicating that the latter does not create patent-eligible subject matter, hence the claimed isolated DNAs also do not. Such an analogy is misplaced. Extracting a kidney from a body does not result in a patent-eligible composition, as an isolated gene has been and should be. A kidney is an organ, not a well defined composition of matter"

    A kidney is not a well defined composition of matter? I'm confused. Is the court suggesting that a kidney is not well defined, or that a kidney is not a composition of matter? Let's face it, if someone invented a kidney and it didn't exist in nature, it would be patentable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    383bigblock (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:46pm

    Prior use

    If I'm correct the first time that I actually sneezed and spread my genes all over my mommies eyeglasses was when I was about 2 weeks old. I claim prior use and spread of my genes and therefore they cannot be patented.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 1:47pm

    Re:

    No, because they can't patent the genes as they exist in the human body, only the isolated genes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    RichWa (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:24pm

    Does this mean

    if procreation passes the patented gene the parents are in violation of the patent?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    RichWa (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

    Re: They are not your genes

    they are mine!

    But seriously, does this mean that if Bain buys a company that holds a patent for the gene that gave me blue eyes, they can sue me and my children for patent infringement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:39pm

    Re: Re:

    I am really starting to question the sanity of patenting genes. If I remember correctly from my classes in microbiology, there are conservative substitutions on genes which code for the same amino-acid, meaning: If you want to patent, say a gene coding for a small specific protein of say 1 kb, you will end up with billions of specific genetic sequences to protect your protein. And that doesn't even start to cover that most proteins have specific sites of action and as long as the 3d-structure remains relatively alike you can get a similar response from receptors, enzymes and what-have-you. In other words: You can relatively easily make a small tweak to the genetic code without the output protein changing its actions, but still being unique from the sequences coding for the specific protein.
    If a genetic patent includes all proteins with the same properties: to *beep* with software patents, you should be a genetics-patent troll, since one patent covers such an extreme amount of sequences...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:43pm

    Re: This is lunacy...

    I am not an expert in the field, but I would argue that there are only so many 'good' ways of adjusting the position of a hex-headed screw. That is to say, to someone skilled in that art there would only be so many approaches to consider for working with a gene within a set of living cells; some of which might be closer to your existing tools and thus the ones you would select.

    '' Good meaning optimized for cost and effectiveness

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Mega1987 (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 3:54pm

    genes are patentable?

    is this a start of in-breeding?

    Not to mention millions, if not billions, of petitions to have their genes patented from each and every family who wish to patent their genes all over the world.

    Good luck you numbskulls on filling them....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2012 @ 6:15pm

    Designer Genes

    It's just a matter of time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:14pm

    Re:

    I'd argue that prior art alone would prevent a gene patent.

    Let there be Light, and all that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    staff, Aug 17th, 2012 @ 9:57am

    more dissembling by Masnick

    "smack CAFC around for being overly infatuated with letting everything in the world be patentable"

    Nonsense. The Constitution says “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Therefore, if an invention is useful and promotes science, it should be patentable. It’s that simple.

    Further, now more than ever small entities need strong property rights including the ability to exclude others from using our inventions without permission. Without them we cannot get funded and commercialize. Without strong property rights China and other low wage foreign nations will keep steam rolling us. Considering we create the lions share of new jobs here at home, America cannot afford to undermine us.

    Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html for a knowledgeable analysis of patent issues from those who actually know something about them. All Masnick knows about patents is he doesn't have any.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This