Australia Finally Rejects Gene Patents

from the big-win dept

Back in 2013, in a hugely important decision, the US Supreme Court rejected the idea of gene patents, in particular the patents held by Myriad Genetics for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (that are genetic warning signs for breast cancer). A parallel case was happening down in Australia, where an Australian court went the other way last year, ruling that genes could be patented. As we noted, the case could still be appealed to the Australian High Court. And now... the High Court has finally rejected gene patents.
The High Court held that an isolated nucleic acid, coding for a BRCA1 protein, with specific variations from the norm that are indicative of susceptibility to breast cancer and ovarian cancer, was not a "patentable invention"...
Specifically, the court rejected the argument that isolating the gene represented a "manner of manufacture" as required by the law to be patentable.
The Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the invention claimed did not fall within the concept of a manner of manufacture. The Court held that, having regard to the relevant factors, an isolated nucleic acid, coding for the BRCA1 protein, with specified variations, is not a manner of manufacture. While the invention claimed might be, in a formal sense, a product of human action, it was the existence of the information stored in the relevant sequences that was an essential element of the invention as claimed. A plurality of the Court considered that to attribute patentability to the invention as claimed would involve an extension of the concept of a manner of manufacture which was not appropriate for judicial determination.
That's a fairly complex way of saying you can't patent genes. It's always nice to see a little more common sense enter the patent system.

Filed Under: australia, brca1, dna, gene patents, patents
Companies: myriad genetics


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2015 @ 4:30pm

    It wouldn't have lasted long

    The so called "Inventor of Hepatitis C" never got sued for their invention. An invention allowed by the US patent office, only possible after the company received an isolated sample of the disease from the CDC, as did a number of university and private labs who also received samples so they could develop tests, and try to develop vaccines, This "invention" has ment one (1) company reaps profits off other peoples hard work.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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