SCOTUS - Human Genes Cannot Be Patented

[TechMan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-cannot-be-patented/

SCOTUS ruled unanimously that companies cannot patent parts of naturally-occurring human genes.  This reverses 30 years of patents awarded by the USPTO.  Justice Thomas wrote the court's decision.

Click the link for more.

[charby]

I wonder if naturally occurring plant genes will be the next? I.e. traits in agricultural crops.

[AZRedhawk44]

Allow me to point out the cloud that is bearing this silver lining.


Since no patent can be awarded for naturally occurring DNA... that then means your own DNA is public domain and you have no right to clones made from your genetic stock, or to control synthesis created from your genetic stock.  Hypothetically.


At least, that's where my disturbed little AZR44 mind went with this.

[TechMan]

Allow me to point out the cloud that is bearing this silver lining.


Since no patent can be awarded for naturally occurring DNA... that then means your own DNA is public domain and you have no right to clones made from your genetic stock, or to control synthesis created from your genetic stock.  Hypothetically.


At least, that's where my disturbed little AZR44 mind went with this.

Would we really want a mini-AZR44 running around? 

[MechAg94]

Allow me to point out the cloud that is bearing this silver lining.


Since no patent can be awarded for naturally occurring DNA... that then means your own DNA is public domain and you have no right to clones made from your genetic stock, or to control synthesis created from your genetic stock.  Hypothetically.


At least, that's where my disturbed little AZR44 mind went with this.

On the other end of that:  If someone patented a set of genes that you happen to possess, could they then come after you for licensing fees.   

[MechAg94]

Looking at the article, the company developed a test that isolated a particular gene set in women and checked for mutations that indicate an increased risk of breast cancer.  They weren't trying to patent the test or method, they were trying to patent the particular gene set they were looking out.  I don't see how that is supposed to work.  To me, that is like the Wright Brothers taking out a patent for flying (any flying) rather than the patent for the steering and other techniques they developed. 

[birdman]

Looking at the article, the company developed a test that isolated a particular gene set in women and checked for mutations that indicate an increased risk of breast cancer.  They weren't trying to patent the test or method, they were trying to patent the particular gene set they were looking out.  I don't see how that is supposed to work.  To me, that is like the Wright Brothers taking out a patent for flying (any flying) rather than the patent for the steering and other techniques they developed. 

Agreed.
Patents are either method/process or device patents.  Discovery of something that is acted upon by a device/method/process can't possibly meet the definition of unique (no prior art) and non-obvious to someone skilled in the art, as the prior art (the gene) already exists, and has forever, and the discovery is not unique, as technically anyone skilled in the art could find it, and it would be the "first approach"--since its a "discovery".

The better analogy is instead of patenting a new way to smelt iron, or a new thing to do with iron, patenting iron.

[agricola]

What Birdman and MechAg said. 

[Perd Hapley]

agricola, who is that bird?

[agricola]

agricola, who is that bird?

Adaora Akubilo, who the internets inform me is from one of your confusingly-spelt states.