Final Words from the Sidelines as Courtroom Arguments Begin in Gene Patent Litigation
Yesterday, on the eve of summary judgment arguments in the Myriad case, The Boston Globe editorialized—strongly—against patenting isolated genes. This is an issue in which the Globe has a natural interest, given the concentration of biotech companies in and around Boston. The Globe’s editorialists may or may not be right on the merits, but they are surely too glib.
First, they wrongly blame the Patent Office for what they see as bad policy: “The US patent office assumes that granting one firm the exclusive right to profit off of a gene is the best way to encourage further research.” No, the Patent Office doesn’t “assume” this—it’s in the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8), which allows Congress to grant exclusive rights to inventors to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. That is, the Constitution states an economic rationale for patents: the Framers believed that the promise of monopoly returns was the best way to motivate inventors to invent and then to disclose their technology (which you have to do to get a patent). So even if you disagree with this policy, you shouldn’t say that the Patent Office dreamed it up or has any authority to change it.
Myriad Genetics, USPTO File Summary Judgment Motions in Gene Patent Case
Two of the defendants in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the frontal attack on Myriad Genetics’ breast cancer gene patents organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, have now filed their own summary judgment motions. (Click through to read the memorandum in support of Myriad Genetics’ motion (pdf) filed on December 23 and the memorandum in support of the PTO’s motion (pdf) filed on December 24). As we explained in an earlier post, a summary judgment motion seeks to convince the trial judge that the facts are so clear-cut that there is no reason to go ahead with the trial—in legal jargon, that there is “no issue of material fact” that needs to be tried. This is the rare case in which both sides have asked for summary judgment (the plaintiffs filed their motion and supporting memorandum (pdf) back on August 26). The filings by both sides are not a surprise here, however, since the facts surrounding the challenged patents are largely undisputed and the real question is how to apply patent law to those facts.
Follow-on Biologics: How Much Incentive Do We Need?
After almost a full year of debate, a pathway for approving “follow-on biologics” or “biosimilars” continues to be a hot topic in Congress. We are all familiar with generic versions of brand-name drugs, and the federal regulatory scheme sets out well-defined shortcut procedures for approval of generics. Congress is now grappling with designing procedures for approval of generic versions of biological drugs. Although follow-on biologics are in some ways similar to generic drugs, the differences are crucial, and in fact the regulatory scheme for generic drugs does not work at all for biologics. Congress has its work cut out for it.
Biologics 101. In short, here is the problem: typical pharmaceutical drugs (“small molecule drugs”) are chemically synthesized, and once the brand-name manufacturer’s exclusive patent rights expire, generic manufacturers are free to obtain approvals under abbreviated procedures, Generic manufacturers are generally not required to submit preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data along with these Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), thereby avoiding the huge expenses associated with developing new pharmaceuticals. But this route is only open to the generic manufacturer if it can prove that the generic version of the drug contains an identical replica of the drug’s active ingredient. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may approve a generic version of a drug if the generic contains the same active ingredient as the original, shows bioequivalence to the original, and is demonstrated to be manufactured according to appropriate practices. Once these are shown, the generic is allowed to piggyback on the designation of the original drug as safe and effective.
Enabling Responsible Public Genomics
In the few short months since its launch, we’ve found the Genomics Law Report to be a flexible forum for discussing the legal implications of current developments in the fields of genomics and personalized medicine. Often what reaches the pages of the GLR, however, represents only the highlights from more detailed research and analysis that we undertake in order to thoroughly understand these issues and accurately advise our clients.
We have collected some of that more detailed research and analysis in a law review article, “Enabling Responsible Public Genomics,” to be published next spring in the journal Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine. Here’s the abstract for the article:
What Happens When Professors Have Valuable Inventions?
You are a faculty member at a research university and you have made a significant breakthrough. More specifically, you are on the verge of what might be loosely called an “invention.” It could be anything—a chemical formula, a gene, a medical test or therapy, an engineering advance, or even a method of financial analysis. But its defining elements are that it is new and that it has a potentially useful, real-world application.
So what do you do next? The answer is simple, unequivocal, and unavoidable: Read your university’s patent and invention policy. (It might also be called an intellectual property policy or a technology transfer policy.) In all probability, it became part of your terms and conditions of employment when you were hired.
Read the rest of this entry »
Biotech Patents under Attack from Two More Angles
Two developments this month have underscored the breadth of dissatisfaction with the current state of biotechnology patenting, even as the court weighs a summary judgment motion in the pending ACLU-sponsored litigation against Myriad Genetics’ breast cancer gene patents. First, on October 2, 2009, the American Medical Association and four other medical organizations interested in genetic medicine filed an amicus brief in Bilski v. Kappos, which is now before the Supreme Court. In a decision in Bilski late last year, the Federal Circuit rejected a patent on a method of hedging in a commodities market because it was a nontransformative process consisting solely of mental steps. The Federal Circuit promulgated what has come to be known as the machine-or-transformation test, which limits patentable subject matter to processes that are either tied to a particular machine or transform the state of matter. The test has been attacked by various biotechnology and pharmaceutical interests because of its perceived limiting effect on patenting diagnostic techniques and tests.
Prometheus and Medical Methods Patents
On September 16 the Federal Circuit decided a patent case called Prometheus Laboratories Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (pdf). Prometheus sued Mayo for infringing two patents on a method of optimizing drug therapy for autoimmune diseases. The question in the case was whether the method met the patentable subject matter standard of section 101 of the Patent Act, as interpreted in the Federal Circuit’s 2008 In re Bilski decision (pdf) (which is now before the Supreme Court). The patentable subject matter standard is an initial threshold that must be crossed on the way to patentability. To satisfy the standard, the claimed invention must be within the broad categories of things (machines, manufactures, compositions of matter, or processes/methods) that the Patent Act permits to be patented. If not, the inquiry ends; if so, the invention must still be shown to be novel, useful, and nonobvious. This is the standard that the ACLU has focused on in its motion for summary judgment in the Myriad Genetics case, which we have been following closely.
ACLU Moves for Summary Judgment in Myriad Patent Case
In prior posts we’ve described the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging Myriad Genetic’s patents on BRCA1 and 2, the breast cancer susceptibility genes, and responded to readers’ questions about the effect of those patents on research. In the latest development in the case, the ACLU has filed a motion for summary judgment (the motion was filed on August 26, 2009, and the ACLU’s supporting brief can be found here (pdf).)
Summary judgment, as the term suggests, is a device whereby the judge decides the case before it ever gets to trial. The party asking for summary judgment must persuade the court that the facts are undisputed and the controlling law is unambiguous, so there is no need for a trial. As the standard is sometimes stated, it is clear at the time of the motion that no reasonable jury could find for the other side. Summary judgment, while fairly rare, is most often granted after extensive discovery (sworn deposition testimony and document production), when the parties can make an accurate forecast of what evidence would come out at trial.
Duke Finds a Second Alzheimer’s Gene—What Does It Mean?
The recent discovery of a gene linked to Alzheimer’s disease provides a timely context for revisiting the significance of gene patents. Researchers at Duke University Medical Center recently announced that they have identified a second gene (called TOMM40) associated with an increased risk of late-onset Alzheimer’s, which affects people over the age of 65. A team of Duke gene hunters originally identified the first Alzheimer’s gene (APOE) in 1993. Although the announcement prompted warnings about the need for further confirmation, the Duke researchers hope that the analysis of which versions, or alleles, of the two genes that people carry will significantly sharpen geneticists’ ability to predict susceptibility to Alzheimer’s. Those predictions might prove especially useful in both diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease and in developing future Alzheimer’s drugs.
One of the first questions on everyone’s mind, particularly in light of the high-profile lawsuit by the ACLU and others against Myriad Genetics, is whether this newly discovered Alzheimer’s gene could be patented. In principle, yes. Going back at least to the early 1980s, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (US PTO) and the federal courts have repeatedly taken the position that genes in isolation from their natural environment (that is, outside the body) are patentable subject matter, just like any other chemical compound. Individual cases have turned on such specifics as whether others had previously identified the gene, or whether and when the patent applicant or others had first disclosed the gene. But there is no general prohibition against patenting genes.
Whole-Genome Sequencing and Gene Patents Coexist (For Now)
In a recent post, John Conley analyzed the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging Myriad Genetics’ patents on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 “breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility” genes. Several readers responded with the same general inquiry: if an individual undergoes a whole-genome sequence analysis, will the individual (or the company providing the sequence) be required to pay royalties to Myriad because the BRCA-1 and -2 loci will have been sequenced?
Although focused on the BRCA genes, the question is broadly applicable to the entire genome sequencing industry: when sequencing all or a portion (e.g., the exome) of an individual’s genome, are individual gene patents infringed upon by either the company providing the sequence or the individual purchasing or requesting it? The answer is not entirely clear, but, at least in the case of Myriad and the BRCA genes, it appears to be no. Or at least, not yet.
Let’s begin with what is not patented, which includes a majority of genes and the vast majority of the human genome. Genes—those stretches of DNA that encode for proteins—make up approximately 2% of the human genome. The estimate of the exact number of genes ranges from between roughly 20,000 to 30,000 and, of those, a 2005 study in the journal Science found that only 20% of human gene DNA sequences are patented (subscription). Although those numbers are certainly subject to change, the reality is that, today, it is likely that less than 1% of the entire human genome has been patented.
Of course, that very small number belies the fact that the genes which have been patented consist of some of the most important identified genes associated with the prediction or determination of human health and disease. The high-profile BRCA genes are an excellent example and thus make for a good case study.
