Federal judge overrules USPTO on patents for human genes

A U.S. District Judge has overruled the USPTO, invalidating 7 patents on human genes (152-page PDF).

Thank christ.

The patent holders had argued that isolating the genes had been transformative enough to make the material patentable. The challengers successfully argued that they weren't transforming the genes at all. The case is distinguishable from Chakrabarty because the researchers here isolated the genes and DNA, but didn't create them. And genes, being chemical compounds from nature, are unpatentable subject matter under Section 101 of the patent statute.

The decision is important politically, too. The genes that were sought to be patented have to do with breast cancer. The company that would own the patent on those genes would pwn that area of breast cancer research in the U.S., and here's why. Hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other researchers seeking to work on treating or curing breast cancer would be forced to seek a license from the patentholder to use the genes in their research or business. Under-funded yet otherwise skilled and qualified parties would be unable to afford the rights to use the genes in their own research; businesses would forgo developing breast cancer drugs and treatments until the patent expires and they would no longer have to pay to use the genes. And for the next 20 years, breast cancer research would be slowed due to cost and time wasted in the licensing paperwork.

Yet the patent holders argue that patenting human genes incentivizes innovation! Maybe it incentivizes the isolation of genes, especially ones implicated in conditions that attract a lot of research money. But it does exactly the opposite for the broader goal of using what we know about the role of human genes in the operation of diseases.

Note that one of the plaintiffs is the Boston Women's Health Collective.