Pigs Fly: Federal Court Invalidates Myriad’s Patent Claims
Late on the afternoon of Monday, March 29, 2010, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a jaw-dropping summary judgment ruling (pdf) in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO that invalidates certain of Myriad Genetics’ patents related to the BRCA 1 and 2 breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. In a post written immediately after the release of the opinion, Dan gave a thorough summary of the ruling. Our objective here is to offer a bit more depth on what the ruling means—and what it doesn’t mean. On the one hand, Judge Sweet’s order is radical and astonishing in its sweep. On the other, it will be some time before we have any idea what impact it will ultimately have.
We should first disclose that one of us (John) has a dog in this fight, albeit a small one. In 2003, (along with biologist and patent lawyer Roberte Makowski), John published an article in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society entitled Back to the Future: Rethinking the Product of Nature Doctrine as a Barrier to Biotechnology Patents (pdf). In that article, Roberte and John laid out an argument for challenging Myriad-style patents on “isolated” genes as claiming products that are only trivially different from the naturally-occurring versions. Judge Sweet cited this article and, in several parts of his opinion, followed the roadmap it created. So, if you oppose the Myriad patents, you’re welcome; if you like them, we’re sorry.
What Summary Judgment Means. As Dan noted, and John first wrote last fall, it is rare for plaintiffs to win on summary judgment. For either side to receive summary judgment, it must show that there are no disputed issues of fact that require a trial to resolve, and that, on the undisputed facts, the law mandates judgment in its favor. This standard is especially hard for a plaintiff to meet, since it bears the burden of proof at trial. At the summary judgment stage, a defendant can usually create an issue of fact and thereby avoid summary judgment just by saying “they have the burden of proof at trial, and a jury might not believe them.” Although this is an unusual case in that the basic facts—most notably Myriad’s patent claims and the fundamental biology and genetics that makes possible those claims—really are not in dispute, a summary judgment ruling for the plaintiffs nonetheless sends a clear message about how strong this particular judge thought their case was—and how weak he thought Myriad’s was.
The Road to Invalidation. The court broke Myriad’s patent claims into two major groups: (i) those claiming isolated DNA sequences and (ii) those claiming methods for comparing or analyzing gene sequences to identify the presence of mutations corresponding to a predisposition to breast or ovarian cancer (p. 2). Both sets of patents were rejected under Section 101 of the Patent Act, which enumerates the permissible categories of patentable subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. As the judge noted, a long history of cases forbids claims on laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena, which include products of nature.
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.
Five Questions for Personal Genomics in 2010
Death, taxes and January prediction columns: these things are inevitable. So what? A new year offers a convenient—if arbitrary—time to review the year that was and contemplate what lies ahead. Without further ado, here are five of the questions the Genomics Law Report is asking as we kick off 2010.
1. Will the $1,000 genome live up to the hype? Affordable whole-genome sequencing is coming, possibly as early as this year depending on whom you ask. But when the day inevitably arrives, after the media frenzy has subsided, will the $1,000 genome prove anti-climactic?
Whole-genome sequencing is a means to an end and not an end in itself. The understandable excitement surrounding Complete Genomics’ November announcement that it had sequenced three genomes for an average cost of $4,400 often neglected to focus on what the price tag did not cover: the substantial costs associated with interpreting the genomic data.
For genomics researchers, the falling cost of whole-genome sequencing is a continuing cause for celebration, enabling increasingly ambitious research projects. But the success of personal genomics, which is what really matters to consumers, patients and healthcare providers, requires more than inexpensive genomic data. The real breakthrough in personal genomics will come when we can offer individuals affordable access to their whole-genome sequence as well as to the genomic tools and knowledgebase necessary for those individuals to put that data to use.
Welcoming GINA into the Workplace
The most recent layer of federal antidiscrimination law took effect this past weekend – to the ADA, Title VII, FMLA and other federal and state laws, employers can add another: the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Title I of this new law (called GINA) took effect in May 2009, prohibiting health insurers and group plans from using genetic information to deny coverage or set payment rates. Title II now joins the fray, and with it brings prohibitions that make their way into almost every workplace. Under Title II, an employer may not “discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment … because of genetic information.”
While a long time in the making (13 years of (often procedural) debate), in the end, there was little argument in Congress that this law was needed – the Senate approved it unanimously, and the House of Representatives had only one vote against it. As early as January 2001, the Council for Responsible Genetics claimed hundreds of documented cases of genetic discrimination and/or fear of genetic discrimination in its Genetic Discrimination: Position Paper (pdf). In a 2007 survey (pdf), the Genetics and Public Policy Center found that 92% of participants expressed concerns that a genetic test could be used in harmful ways against a person. Last summer, we reported on Major League Baseball’s genetic testing to verify the reported ages of certain Latin American prospects. This past month, the University of Akron made headlines over a new policy requiring job applicants to turn over DNA samples, and in the process energized the Ohio chapter of the ACLU.
Bilski and Biotechnology: The Supremes Speak Up
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Bilski case yesterday (pdf of full transcript). The Justices’ questions evinced unmitigated hostility to Bilski’s claim on a method of hedging commodities risks, and to business method patents generally. Detailed analysis of the oral argument is available from ScotusBlog, Patent Docs and Blawg IT. The decision in Bilski will have far-reaching consequences for patents on methods of analysis, data interpretation, and performing certain tasks, and at the GLR we have several times noted the potential significance of the case for biotechnology patent law.
The Justices may not be reading the GLR (or are they?), but they are well aware of Bilksi’s potential implications. In argument, Justice Sotomayor commented that if the Court upheld the Federal Circuit’s Bilski decision she would “have no idea what the limits of that ruling will impose in the computer world, in the biomedical,” but expressed concern that upholding Bilski’s machine or transformation test could “destroy industries” by “shoe-horning technologies that might be different.” And Justice Ginsburg, while remarking that Bilski “could be decided without making any bold steps,” conceded that “we know that things that we haven’t yet contemplated may be around the corner, and when they happen, we will deal with them.”
Read the rest of this entry »
A Court Ruling in the ACLU v. Myriad Gene Patent Litigation, But We’re Still A Long Way From A Gene Patent Resolution
For nearly six months the Genomics Law Report has been covering the developments in the ACLU-instigated lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, the University of Utah and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In late July, Myriad and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Yesterday, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the Southern District of New York finally denied those motions.
Judge Sweet ruled against the defendants in each of several separate motions to dismiss, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The always-comprehensive Patent Docs blog has a complete summary of yesterday’s ruling—as well as the court’s full opinion (pdf)—but there’s at least one part of the ruling that’s worth highlighting here.
Federal Privacy Regulation and the Financially Troubled DTC Genomics Company
Last month, the Genomics Law Report prepared a three-part series entitled What Happens if a DTC Genomics Company Goes Belly Up? The series, which was originally published on Genetic Future (see Parts 1, 2 and 3), reviewed the privacy policies of several genomics companies to determine whether they prohibit the transfer of private data to third parties. We also discussed the fact that a bankruptcy court may approve such a transfer notwithstanding a policy to the contrary. In this post, we examine whether federal regulations may restrict the dissemination of private genomic data—including the new rules proposed earlier this month under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
1. Is DTC Getting HIPAA? The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the most prominent federal regulation governing the privacy of medical records, established the Privacy Rule to provide national standards for protected medical records. HIPAA’s Privacy Rule currently applies only to “covered entities” and business associates of covered entities. A covered entity is a health plan, health care clearinghouse, or a health care provider. Since a company providing genomic sequencing services is not a health plan or a health care clearinghouse, HIPAA will apply only if such a company is determined to be a health care provider or a business associate of a covered entity.
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.
NCI’s New BRCA1 Test: Broader Utility and Another Challenge to Traditional Genetic Tests
Contributed by Allison Williams Dobson of the Center for Genomics and Society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
As reported last week by GenomeWeb, on September 21, 2009, a team led by Shyam Sharan from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) published the development of a new BRCA1 test based on mouse embryonic stem cells. Potentially, the test could prove useful for a much broader range of patients than the controversial Myriad Genetics BRCA1 tests.
The NCI approach focuses more on protein production than DNA analysis. The BRCA1 gene serves as the blueprint for an important tumor suppressor protein. If BRCA1 protein is not produced in sufficient quality and/or quantity, a propensity to develop cancer in the breast tissue often results. The traditional genetic testing approach asks whether a subject carries any of the BRCA1 gene variants that have been associated with increased risk for breast cancer in studies of afflicted families. NCI’s approach asks a significantly different question—rather than focusing on an identified set of “bad” gene variants, NCI asks whether a subject carries BRCA1 variants that serve as adequate blueprints for a functional protein, whether those variants have been previously identified or not. It does this by testing the protein product of the gene.
Until now, women with a family history of breast cancer have been most likely to seek a BRCA genetic test and represent the principal source of BRCA genetic data. Thus Myriad’s patented tests are based on a set of culprit BRCA gene variants found by studying primarily families with a strong propensity toward breast cancer, despite the fact that only 5-7 % of breast cancers are familial. As a result, the Myriad tests only offer useful information about a subset of BRCA1 variants. But many people (both with and without family history) carry other BRCA1 variants of unknown significance (VUS). There just are not enough empirical data yet to support conclusions about the risk associated with VUS.
