Plaintiff (π): Association for Molecular Pathology et al.
Defendants (Δ): Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Appellants: Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Respondent: Association for Molecular Pathology et al.
The important facts of the case:
BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were discovered by Myriad Genetics, Inc. These genes were found to increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer substantially.
Myriad Genetics Inc. was involved in developing several tests that could detect the gene mutation leading to the increment in the cancer risk.
In addition to this, Myriad took the patent on those genes and took the exclusive rights that could prevent others from
Researching on the topics related to those genes
Conducting tests and establishing labs to conducts the test that was related to those specific genes
Provide any medical services to treat any risks and abnormalities related to those genes.
Apart from that, the patent would exclusively permit Myriad to isolate the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from an individual and create BRCA cDNA synthetically.
As a result, a coalition of medical practitioners filed a case against this Myriad stating that the patents held by Myriad were invalid.
The procedural history of the case:
The case was initially heard at Southern district Court of New York, and the verdict was that all the patents held by Myriads regarding this case were not valid.
Myriad appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where the decision from district court was overturned based on the logic that the DNA do not exist independently. It should be isolated based on the ability of the researcher and thus, can be patented.
Against the decision of this decision, plaintiffs filed the appeal in the Supreme Court. The case was handed over to Federal Circuit, but the decision was not changed. Then, plaintiffs filed this certiorari in the Supreme Court for the decision.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal from plaintiff against Federal circuit.
The final decision was not in anyone’s favor. Some claims of the plaintiffs were accepted, and some claim of the defendant was accepted.
The legal issue(s) that the Supreme Court was called upon to decide:
Whether or not the genes isolated should be patented or not?
Is it good to provide patents to limit or prohibit others from conducting medical tests, isolate genes and conduct studies regarding those genes?
The Court’s ruling(s).
The Supreme Court agreed to the limit with the petitioners. The Supreme Court ruled the decision against the Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supreme Court stated that no organization can file or obtain the patent by just isolating and identifying the sequence of the gene. However, all the methods that were related to the gene sequences, the copies and the derivatives of the sequence were left open for the purpose of additional review.
The reasons supporting (explaining) why the Court ruled as it did.
According to the court, there was nothing created. The patents can only be registered if and only if there was something new created. There must be something invented or discovered. But, in this situation, there was nothing created. The genes are naturally existing substance, and these genes are not invented by any process. The DNAs are naturally existing, and any segment of DNA is naturally existed in nature hence, it cannot be patented. However, the synthesis of cDNA can be patented because it does not exist naturally.
