Myriad Genetics Loses Again: Court Refuses To Grant Preliminary Injunction Against Rival Genetic Testing Company

from the battling-cancer dept

In June last year we reported on a major ruling from the Supreme Court, which effectively said that you can't patent genes. That ripped a huge hole in Myriad Genetics' monopoly on testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that are linked to breast cancer, but that didn't stop it suing some of the new entrants to this market. In particular, it asked a federal judge in Utah to order one of them, Ambry Genetics, to stop providing its gene testing service for those genes. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief opposing Myriad's motion, together with a number of other organizations. Here's the latest development in the case:

Yesterday, a federal district court judge in Utah rejected Myriad's motion. Judge Shelby found that Myriad had failed to establish that it was likely to win its lawsuit against Ambry, because there are substantial questions about whether Myriad's patent claims improperly monopolize products of nature, laws of nature, and abstract ideas.

While Myriad's lawsuits can proceed -- for now -- patients continue to have the right to choose other BRCA genetic testing providers. They can obtain a second opinion before making life-changing medical decisions. And they can decide which laboratory will have their data.
That last point is important. As the ACLU explains:
Myriad has used its patents over the genes to create the largest database in the world about BRCA genetic mutations and their medical significance and refuses to share that information with the scientific community.
That underlines another huge problem with gene patents: they allow monopoly-holders to lock up key medical information that could have been used by researchers around the world to advance knowledge and come up with new treatments. Far from accelerating innovation, as apologists for patents like to claim, they throw huge roadblocks in its way. It's yet another reason why the Supreme Court's decision to strike down gene patents should be celebrated.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 18th, 2014 @ 8:28pm

    Because we can trust corporations to put the well being of people above profits... errr wait.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Kronomex, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 10:54pm

    "Why do we do it?"
    "Because we care."
    "Oh, not because of the bonuses we give each other at the end of the year?"
    "Shut up you fool, someone could be listening. Now look into the spinning spiral disk."
    "I'm looking...looking..."
    "You will not remember about bonuses but only that we care."
    Forget bonuses...only we care."
    "Good, good."

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Mar 18th, 2014 @ 11:00pm

    Re:

    Now look into the spinning spiral disk.

    Whenever anyone says something about spinning disks, I always think of this scene from Hairspray:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CxLACIpphU

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 19th, 2014 @ 12:52am

    "It's yet another reason why the Supreme Court's decision to strike down gene patents should be celebrated."

    It should never have been a question. Then again, neither should; "Is a corporation a person?" I thought slavery was dead, yet you have people "owning" a "person."

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    Mega1987 (profile), Mar 19th, 2014 @ 2:34am

    You can't sue Nature.

    if Myriad Genetics managed to get the patents over genetics...

    I don't thick they can Sue nature as it's gonna sue(read:screw them over) them for taking away it's Patent that it held since pre-historic times... XD

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Joe Dirt, Mar 19th, 2014 @ 5:28am

    Re:

    "Then again, neither should; "Is a corporation a person?" I thought slavery was dead, yet you have people "owning" a "person."

    Corporate Personhood

    Why do people continue to take things out of context? I would think that on this site, the commenters would know better. Most espouse the notion that context is everything. I guess that only matters when it's something you agree with, all others be damned.

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 19th, 2014 @ 5:54am

    Re: Re:

    Do you know why corporations were formed?

    "A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders,[1] and may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not-for-profit business."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

    You needed it defined as a "personhood" to understand what is meant here? It protects the shareholders. You cannot sue them. You sue the corporation and the shareholders assets are safe, they still have a home with a full six-car garage. Employees can say they were just doing their job, following orders. These people aren't responsible, the corporation did it.

    P.S. Separate legal entity did not come about after "corporate personhood," it was the original intent. Did someone take it out of context so the courts had to supply new definitions and clarity?

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Mar 19th, 2014 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm just fine with protecting shareholders from liability. I don't want to lose my house and my car because the guy who manages my 401(k) thought that some shares of EvilCorp, Inc. would improve my retirement.

    But that's a far cry from what people object to when they talk about corporate personhood. It's about corporations making claims that they have the same legal rights as you and me, and should. It's about corporations that have vastly larger resources at their disposal than any individual person being able to use them indiscriminately to work against the interests of actual people, such as by spending millions to influence elections and government regulations.

    It's about abusing the notion of protection from liability to protect not only shareholders, but the actual decision makers who should be held liable. I don't buy that "Employees can say they were just doing their job, following orders. These people aren't responsible, the corporation did it." That's a bunch of crap. It wasn't valid at Nuremburg, and it shouldn't be valid at Monsanto, Microsoft or Goldman Sachs. If you do something that's obviously evil and hurt lots of people, it doesn't matter why you did it, you did something evil and you deserve to be smacked down by the long arm of the law.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 19th, 2014 @ 5:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Where it may appear I differ, was just a dig.

     

    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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.