Marylee Jenkins Comments on the Supreme Court Debate Over Patenting Human Genes

These news outlets include ABC News, WRIC in New York, SCRIP Intelligence, and Law360.

ABC News reported that “after battling breast cancer in 2008, Lisbeth Ceriani took on a whole new challenge. She joined a lawsuit against a biotechnology company she believed was blocking her ability to make informed decisions about her ongoing treatment. Myriad Genetics was awarded patents in the 1990s on two isolated genes called BRCA 1 and BRCA2 as well as diagnostic methods. Women with mutations in those genes are at a much higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer.” Because Ms. Ceriani could not afford the price of a diagnosis test, she joined a lawsuit against Myriad.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a challenge brought by patients, scientists, and researchers that argued that Myriad should no longer have a patent on human genes. The petitioners are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Myriad’s attorneys argued that the company needed a patent to protect its ability to research and make scientific advancements.

Ms. Jenkins said that an oversimplification of the case (that a company could own a part of a human body) doesn’t fully explain the issue. “You have bio tech companies that have spent years and tens of millions of dollars in research and development and patent protection for their inventions with the general public not understanding the complexities of the patent system and protecting innovation in this country,” Ms. Jenkins said.

In looking at what the judicial system has to resolve, Ms. Jenkins added: “You hope that the Supreme Court gets this right without negatively impacting the definition of patent-eligible subject matter under our U.S. patent system. Unfortunately or fortunately, innovation is often not as simple as we would like.”

Ms. Jenkins also explained the repercussions for the Supreme Court’s decision could impact several industries if it tries to re-define testing for patent eligibility. “If there is something that should not be patent eligible, then it’s something for Congress to consider,” she said.

To read the article at the ABC News, click here. To read the article at WRIC, click here. To read the article at SCRIP Intelligence, click here (subscription required). And to read the Law360 article, click here.