* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Supreme Court Invalidates Patents on DNA
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Population genetics wikipedia , lookup
Polycomb Group Proteins and Cancer wikipedia , lookup
Gene desert wikipedia , lookup
Human genome wikipedia , lookup
Essential gene wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
Human genetic variation wikipedia , lookup
Non-coding DNA wikipedia , lookup
Genetic testing wikipedia , lookup
Vectors in gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Heritability of IQ wikipedia , lookup
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Genome editing wikipedia , lookup
Helitron (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Supreme Court Invalidates Patents on DNA Markers, Beneficial to Cattle Producers By Gene Summerlin, Michael Annis and David Newman1 Summerlin G Annis enetic testing continues to play an increasingly important role in the selection of animals for beef cattle production. Recently, the United States Supreme Court determined that the discovery of the location of a gene on a chromosome is not eligible for patent protection. This ruling will significantly alter the playing field for cattle genomics companies that seek to patent genes in relation to tests for traits like marbling, tenderness, or milk production. In Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,2 the Supreme Court held that the location of genes and the order of nucleotides in a gene are “products of nature” that do not meet the Patent Act’s invention requirement. At issue in Myriad were patents directed to two DNA markBy holding that individuals ers that identified the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes or companies cannot patent as well as the normal sequence of nucleotides naturally occurring genes within those genes. the Court insured that comWomen with certain mutations in these genes petition for genetic testing have an extraordinarily will remain robust. high risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer. Myriad’s patent claimed the exclusive right to isolate an individual’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and the sequence of the nucleotides within those genes. As a result, no other laboratories could perform tests for mutations of these genes because isolating the genes and their DNA sequence in any individual would infringe Myriad’s patent. 16 the Register February 2014 Newman The Court struck down the patent because “Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. Nor did Myriad create or alter the genetic structure of DNA. Instead, Myriad’s principal contribution was uncovering the precise location and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. . . . To be sure, [Myriad] found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention. Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the [patent eligibility] inquiry.” Why does this matter to beef producers? Genomic companies in the beef industry follow a similar strategy — finding DNA markers that identify genes related to a specific trait and then offering genetic tests to determine whether an animal possesses those genes. Whether the trait is positive (like tenderness or marbling) or negative (like curly calf or dwarfism), the technology is premised on identifying the location of the relevant gene and offering a test to determine whether the gene is present or absent in a given animal. By holding that individuals or companies cannot patent naturally occurring genes (or their nucleotide sequence), the Court insured that competition for genetic testing will remain robust. While genomics companies may still protect their discoveries as trade secrets, those companies can no longer prohibit competitors from engaging in research to locate the same genes and offering competing tests under the Patent Act. As genetic technology becomes more sophisticated and a more accurate predictor of phenotypic results, the absence of monopoly power among genomics companies may serve to keep testing costs lower by encouraging price competition among these providers. On the downside, the absence of the Patent Act’s monopoly protection may cause private companies to think twice before devoting substantial sums to research and development of new gene markers and tests. Though, as with many products and services, the ability to be the first in the market place to offer new or particularly valuable tests may well offer sufficient financial rewards to keep the private capital flowing. Yet, even if there is some limitation on private research, land grant institutions and federally funded institutions like the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium and the US Meat Animal Research Center are likely to continue investing significant time, energy and funds into identifying DNA markers for commercially relevant traits. Finally, and probably more importantly, the Myriad ruling will allow genomics companies to discover and offer tests for multiple gene pairs relevant to a given trait without fear of incurring patent liability. Especially for those traits that we know are governed by multiple genes like marbling and tenderness, the impact of the Myriad holding will be significant. Assume, for example, that a thousand gene pairs have a statistically significant effect on marbling. If ten genomics companies each hold patents on one-hundred of the one-thousand relevant genes, each company could only offer tests that represent ten-percent of the relevant genome. Absent a producer’s willingness to pay for ten separate tests, we would never get a true picture of an animal’s genetic merit for marbling. For now, Myriad insures that we won’t have to face this scenario. While no one can predict the exact effect that the Myriad decision will have on the beef industry, the Supreme Court’s determination that the location of a gene is not patentable is a positive step for producers who seek to profit through science. ◆ 1Gene Summerlin and Michael Annis are partners in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Food and Agribusiness practice. Mr. Summerlin represents livestock producers, breed associations and related entities. Mr. Annis represents a wide variety of food, agriculture and biotechnology companies in intellectual property matters. Mr. Newman is an associate in the firm’s Nebraska office. 2Ass’n. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398, 2013 WL 2631062 (U.S. June 13, 2013) the Register February 2014 17