Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. In the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., it is important to first understand the facts pertaining to Myriad Genetics and its gene patenting. Myriad Genetics, a biomedical company, was involved in the hunt or genes associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. They found a sequence of these genes and isolated them, which were known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, filing a patent for them. The basis of the testing premium price was that the patents would allow Myriad to set it during the twenty year life of the patents. Myriad even sent cease and desist letters on the basis of patent infringement when another Genetic Diagnostic Laboratory tested for the
…show more content…
Myriad Genetics, Inc. was brought to the United States Supreme Court on November 30, 2012 where they agreed to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal. On June 13, 2013, the decision of the United States Supreme Court was delivered, ruling in favor of the Association for Molecular Pathology, thus deeming the BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequences patent-ineligible. This decision was justified by the Supreme Court, stating that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and thus not patent eligible, even if it has been isolated, as isolation does not change the segment. However, cDNA is still patentable because it is not naturally occurring. The Supreme Court also made sure to highlight what the decision did not mean. This decision does not claim methods are patent-ineligible. For instance, had Myriad created a new method of manipulating genes while searching for BRCA1 and BRCA2, it could have been possible to seek a patent. However, their methods were not innovative, as they were widely understood within the scientific community, thus not allowing for a patent. Also, the decision does not involve patents on new applications of knowledge about the BRCA genes. Finally the Supreme Court’s decision did not consider the patentability o DNA in which the order of naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered, as this alteration presents a different topic which has not been decided …show more content…
Myriad Genetics Inc. also put many policy issues at stake, in particular the public policy goal of preventing monopolies in a market. If Myriad’s patents would have been deemed valid, they would have had the monopoly on the BRCA genes market, thus creating a monopoly. It is a public policy goal to prevent monopolies because if one company has all of the stake in a certain area, such as Myriad for these isolated genes and their testing, they would then have the ability to create a high price for these testings, thus isolating certain classes from getting the testing without market competition to keep prices reasonable. Additionally, a monopoly in gene studies in particular creates a lack of scientific innovation if no other companies can study these isolated genes. Thus, when the Supreme Court ruled against Myriad Genetics and their patents, it ended this long running monopoly, thus leveling the playing field so other companies can be able to compete and making testing more available within the market. However, this decision puts other patents for genes isolated from natural products in jeopardy, such as drugs derived from microorganisms or plants, as well as an inability to patent bacterial genes leading to a slowing of
Myriad Genetics, Inc. was brought to the United States Supreme Court on November 30, 2012 where they agreed to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal. On June 13, 2013, the decision of the United States Supreme Court was delivered, ruling in favor of the Association for Molecular Pathology, thus deeming the BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequences patent-ineligible. This decision was justified by the Supreme Court, stating that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and thus not patent eligible, even if it has been isolated, as isolation does not change the segment. However, cDNA is still patentable because it is not naturally occurring. The Supreme Court also made sure to highlight what the decision did not mean. This decision does not claim methods are patent-ineligible. For instance, had Myriad created a new method of manipulating genes while searching for BRCA1 and BRCA2, it could have been possible to seek a patent. However, their methods were not innovative, as they were widely understood within the scientific community, thus not allowing for a patent. Also, the decision does not involve patents on new applications of knowledge about the BRCA genes. Finally the Supreme Court’s decision did not consider the patentability o DNA in which the order of naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered, as this alteration presents a different topic which has not been decided …show more content…
Myriad Genetics Inc. also put many policy issues at stake, in particular the public policy goal of preventing monopolies in a market. If Myriad’s patents would have been deemed valid, they would have had the monopoly on the BRCA genes market, thus creating a monopoly. It is a public policy goal to prevent monopolies because if one company has all of the stake in a certain area, such as Myriad for these isolated genes and their testing, they would then have the ability to create a high price for these testings, thus isolating certain classes from getting the testing without market competition to keep prices reasonable. Additionally, a monopoly in gene studies in particular creates a lack of scientific innovation if no other companies can study these isolated genes. Thus, when the Supreme Court ruled against Myriad Genetics and their patents, it ended this long running monopoly, thus leveling the playing field so other companies can be able to compete and making testing more available within the market. However, this decision puts other patents for genes isolated from natural products in jeopardy, such as drugs derived from microorganisms or plants, as well as an inability to patent bacterial genes leading to a slowing of