Legal News

On Judge Sweet?s DNA Ruling: Good for Patients, Bad for Biz?

By Ashby Jones

Folks are positively buzzing, it seems, about this ruling made on Tuesday by Manhattan federal judge Robert Sweet, in which he struck down several patents on human genes.

An article in the WSJ on Wednesday says that, according to medical experts, the ruling could ultimately be a boon for genetic research and a benefit for public health. Click here for Tuesday’s WSJ story on the ruling; here for Judge Sweet’s opinion; here for the Nathan Koppel’s overview of the issues, pubbed last December in the WSJ.

According to the Journal, when companies hold exclusive licenses for human genes, the effects can restrict competition to develop gene-based applications, inflate prices and slow innovation, some geneticists say.

Academic research has also been impeded, though to a lesser extent, by companies who want to protect their intellectual property, they add.

“If this decision is upheld, it in the end is a win for patients and providers,” said James Evans, a medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

The NYT article focuses on the flip side of the coin — the effect the ruling might have on the biotech and pharma industries.

While the immediate impact will likely be muted until an appellate court weighs in on the issue, NYT reporter Andrew Pollack writes that “the invalidation of genetic patents could hit diagnostics companies, agricultural biotechnology companies and perhaps even traditional drug makers.”

"It's really quite a dramatic holding that would have the effect of invalidating many, many patents on which the biotechnology industry has invested considerable money," said Rebecca S. Eisenberg, University of Michigan law professor.

That said, it seems many are still waiting to see how the U.S. Supreme Court rules when it issues its widely anticipated Bilski decision — slated to be handed down in the next three months or so. As the NYT notes, Bilski “does not directly concern gene patents - it is about a fight over a method of hedging risk in commodities trading,” but it gives the Supreme Court a chance to rework U.S. patent law if it wishes to.

"We are still waiting, holding our breath for the Bilski case," said Kari Stefansson, head of research at DeCode Genetics, to the NYT.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 31, 2010 (boomark / email).