Bilski and Biotech: Business As Usual, For Now
Earlier today the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in what some patent observers have termed “the most highly anticipated patent decision of all time“: Bilski v. Kappos (pdf). The Bilski case was widely watched not for the significance of the particular patent at issue but for the far-reaching effect on patent law that the case might have.
Would the Court treat Bilski as a referendum on the patentability of so-called “business methods”? Would it speak more broadly still, using Bilski as an opportunity to clarify the patentability of a range of emerging technologies, particularly in the areas of software and biotechnology? These questions took on added significance for biotechnology companies, investors, researchers and observers earlier this spring when a federal court in New York used Bilski’s machine-or-transformation test to invalidate several of Myriad Genetics’ diagnostic method claims.
Why 23andMe’s Sample Swap is Actually an Argument In Favor of DTC Genetic Testing
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company 23andMe made news this week thanks to a lab mix-up that left up to 96 customers reviewing genetic data that was not their own. Full details of the mix-up, and analysis of 23andMe’s response, are available from Daniel MacArthur at Genetic Future and Turna Ray at Pharmacogenomics Reporter.
23andMe’s sample swap follows close on the heels of the FDA announcing an investigation into Pathway Genomics and Congress launching an even broader investigation of the three leading DTC genetic testing providers. Not surprisingly, many commentators have pointed to 23andMe’s mix-up as just the latest example of the dangers of DTC genetic testing and further evidence of the need for greater federal regulatory scrutiny.
There are a number of reasons why DTC genetic testing may soon find itself subject to increased federal regulatory oversight. However, 23andMe’s widely publicized data error should not be one of those reasons. In fact, the sample swap, while unfortunately timed, actually presents a compelling argument in favor of the direct-to-consumer model for genetic testing.
Transparency First: A Proposal for DTC Genetic Testing Regulation
These are hectic days for the field of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Every week, and sometimes every day, seems to bring a new development. Two weeks ago it was pharmacy giants Walgreens and CVS unveiling agreements with Pathway Genomics to offer Pathway’s genetic testing kits in drugstores nationwide, to which the FDA responded first by declaring such a strategy illegal and, shortly thereafter, launching an investigation. Last week, on the same day that the University of California, Berkeley announced it would be offering genetic tests to all incoming freshmen, a House of Representatives committee announced it was launching its own investigation into three prominent DTC genetic testing companies.
These developments reflect an uncertainty about the regulatory status of DTC genetic testing that is dramatic, although it is not new. In the summer of 2008, public health officials in New York and California sent warning letters to a number of DTC companies, including 23andMe and Navigenics (both targets of the current Congressional investigation). These state regulatory activities prompted concern that other states might follow suit, potentially subjecting DTC companies to the nightmare scenario of inconsistent state-by-state regulation. Nearly two years later, those particular concerns appear to be unfounded.
More on Pathway and Walgreens: The Price of Visibility and Adding the FTC to the Regulatory Mix
Yesterday, direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test provider Pathway Genomics and drugstore giant Walgreens announced a partnership that will place Pathway’s tests on the shelves of thousands of Walgreens stores across the country. Earlier coverage from the GLR reviewed the announcement in detail, and examined whether the Pathway/Walgreens partnership might prove to be the catalyst for increased FDA regulation of DTC genetic tests.
Introducing the FDA to Pathway, but not to genetic testing. Continuing national media coverage has focused on comments from the FDA that the agency was unaware of Pathway’s genetic test and that it has opened an investigation into its legality. Yesterday, Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD) Director Alberto Gutierrez told The Washington Post that he thought Pathway’s genetic test “would be an illegally marketed device” if the company proceeded with the announced Walgreens partnership. Gutierrez was also widely quoted as saying that the FDA was not aware of the test previously and that the agency was “in the process of investigating the test.”
Personal Genomics Follows Pathway to Corner Drugstore; Is Regulation Next?
The direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing marketplace is on the move again. Just last week, in Mapping the Personal Genomics Landscape, I wrote that “predicting precisely which consumer services will be offered and how, if at all, they will be regulated, is impossible. All we know is that personal genomics consumers ten years from now are certain to have many, many more options than they do today.”
Turns out we only needed to wait a week – not a decade – for the landscape to shift again. Earlier today, DTC provider Pathway Genomics announced that it was partnering with drugstore giant Walgreens to offer its genetic testing service through most of that chain’s 7,500 stores.
Is Walgreens the Tipping Point for Personal Genomics Regulation? At first blush, this might appear to be nothing more than a creative product partnership between a fledgling personal genomics company and a giant drugstore chain. As it turns out, there are early indications that the Pathway/Walgreens partnership could turn out to be a tipping point in the regulation of personal genomics.
The Unexpected Impact of Genetics on the Business World
Recent advances in genetic science are remarkable. In 2003 the first full human genome was sequenced after 13 years of work at a cost of over $3 billion. Today, the cost to sequence any individual’s entire genome is approaching $1,000. Genetic tests for specific genes linked to cancer and other diseases exist today and many more are being developed. We hear of a new era of “personalized medicine” in which drugs and therapies will be prescribed based on the individual patient’s specific genes.
All of this may seem to have little direct relevance to companies outside of biotechnology. However, the development of genetic knowledge and technology already has spawned new laws, regulations and patent uncertainties that impact almost all businesses in some way.
Privacy and Nondiscrimination. The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) represents the most comprehensive effort to date to regulate the use of genetic information. GINA initially only prohibited health insurers and group health plans from using genetic information to deny coverage or set payment rates. Another section, which just became effective in November 2009, affects all private and public employers with more than 15 employees.
SACGHS Chair: Put Patients Before Patents
This afternoon, the journal Genetics in Medicine released an online-only supplement analyzing the relationship between gene patents and genetic testing. The bulk of the issue is devoted to a series of 8 case studies surrounding 10 clinical conditions. The case studies were undertaken over the past several years by researchers at Duke University’s Center for Public Genomics, and were led by Robert Cook-Deegan.
The Case Studies. Those who have been following the gene patenting debate for the past few years may recognize the case studies. They were released in largely their current form in March 2009 as a lengthy appendix to the draft report on “Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests” (pdf) prepared by the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society (SACGHS).
The SACHGS report has since been finalized and, as we have discussed, was submitted to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius with a series of recommendations, including exemptions to patent infringement liability for clinical care and research. If adopted, those recommendations would significantly reshape the gene patent and licensing landscape.
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.
Evaluating the NIH’s New Genetic Testing Registry
This morning the NIH announced plans to create a publicly accessible registry of genetic tests. The Genetic Testing Registry (GTR) is expected to be available in 2011 and will contain information voluntarily submitted by genetic test providers. The news is significant and carries implications for clinical genetic testing laboratories, personal genomics service providers and individual purchasers of genetic tests.
Many details of the GTR are yet to come, with NIH promising to “engage stakeholders – such as genetic test developers, test kit manufacturers, health care providers, patients and researchers – for their insights on the best way to collect and display test information.” While the GTR isn’t expected to launch until next year, and there is time to fill in the details, the questions and answers section of the GTR’s new website helpfully addresses several of the most important features of the registry.
This post looks at what we know about the GTR today, and considers what the GTR’s ultimate implementation might mean for the development and regulation of genetic testing. (Note that the inset orange questions, and the text that immediately follows each question, is taken directly from the GTR question and answer page.)
SACGHS Gene Patent Recommendations Still Controversial
The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society (SACGHS) for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) convened again on Friday for a snow-shortened session. One of several items on the Committee’s agenda was a report that the GLR has covered several times (see here and here): Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests. With the threat of a blizzard looming, the meeting was unexpectedly short, with only a pair of public comments followed by the Committee’s vote to approve the report.
The report itself will not be available for several weeks, but the six recommendations on gene patenting and licensing approved by the Committee this past October continue to provoke a heated response. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), along with former Senator Birch Bayh (of Bayh-Dole Act fame) and others, held a Friday press conference to denounce – again – the report’s recommendations.
The SACGHS Recommendations. Most of the recommendations are uncontroversial, urging the Secretary of HHS to convene stakeholders to “explore” and “encourage” strategies to improve access to genetic testing, enhance patent licensing and ensure that the USPTO is “kept current with the latest scientific and technological developments related to genetic testing and technology.”
So what prompted Bayh’s charge that the recommendations represent “an attempt to send us back to a time when it appeared that American innovation was on its last legs and our economy was in deep distress”?
Read the rest of this entry »
