Why Is Myriad Genetics Still Filing Patent Suits for Breast-Cancer Tests?

The Supreme Court declared human genes unpatentable, but it didn’t free the market for genetic testing.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
Brian Resnick
Aug. 8, 2013, 8:28 a.m.

You can’t pat­ent a piece of the hu­man gen­ome, the Su­preme Court de­clared in a un­an­im­ous de­cision in June. So why, in the weeks after, did Myri­ad Ge­net­ics — the com­pany whose pat­ents were voided — sue a com­pet­it­or for pat­ent in­fringe­ment for test­ing for the very gene de­clared un­pat­entable by the Court?

Some back­ground: In the case, the As­so­ci­ation for Mo­lecu­lar Patho­logy brought suit against Myri­ad be­cause it thought it one com­pany shouldn’t have the sole rights to a seg­ment of the hu­man gen­ome — es­pe­cially when that seg­ment in­dic­ates a per­son’s breast-can­cer risk. The or­gan­iz­a­tion ar­gued that Myri­ad’s mono­poly of test­ing for the ma­lig­nant vari­ants of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes plugged up in­nov­a­tion in the sci­ence and drove up costs for pa­tients. Those with a cer­tain vari­ant of these genes have a 60 per­cent like­li­hood of de­vel­op­ing breast can­cer. If you re­call, the act­ress An­gelina Jolie dis­covered she was a car­ri­er for the gene, which promp­ted her to un­der­go a double mastec­tomy to void the risk.

The Su­preme Court largely agreed with the As­so­ci­ation for Mo­lecu­lar Patho­logy, de­clar­ing slices of the nat­ur­ally oc­cur­ring hu­man gen­ome un­fit for pat­ents. And right after the de­cision, two com­pan­ies — Ambry Ge­net­ics and Gene By Gene — saw an open­ing to start of­fer­ing the  breast-can­cer screen­ing tests that Myri­ad had been per­form­ing. And then Myri­ad sued … for pat­ent in­fringe­ment.

The short an­swer to how Myri­ad could jus­ti­fy its move is this: Sci­ence is so very com­plic­ated, and the Court ruled nar­rowly.

In its de­cision, the Su­preme Court main­tained that man-made cop­ies of hu­man DNA were still pat­entable. These pieces are called cDNA, which are slightly altered cop­ies of the nat­ur­ally oc­cur­ring genes. They are use­ful tools for ge­net­ic test­ing, since they can be used to re­lay a per­son’s ge­net­ic in­form­a­tion in a stable form. This bit of the rul­ing, in ef­fect, al­lows Myri­ad to still lay claim to much of the breast-can­cer test­ing.

Writ­ing in Sci­entif­ic Amer­ic­an, Megan Krench, a ge­net­i­cist, provides a more de­tailed an­swer (Read­er’s Di­gest ver­sion: While the Court took away Myri­ad’s castle, they left them the moat):

Why do Myri­ad’s pat­ent rights to cDNA mat­ter? There are sev­er­al reas­ons. First, cDNA is an im­port­ant re­search tool. For ex­ample, the ed­ited cDNA se­quence, not the longer DNA se­quence, is of­ten used to cre­ate an­im­al mod­els of dis­eases. Those mod­els are es­sen­tial for re­search­ing new treat­ments and cures. Without the li­cens­ing to BRCA1/2 cDNA, cer­tain can­cer re­search may be re­stric­ted to Myri­ad. Next, cDNA is crit­ic­al for de­vel­op­ing new dia­gnost­ic tests for ge­net­ic dis­orders. Since the BRCA1/2 genes them­selves are not pat­en­ted, it may be pos­sible for oth­er com­pan­ies to de­vel­op new ge­net­ic tests — but the pat­en­ted cDNA will make this pro­cess much more dif­fi­cult.

In all, after the Court’s de­cision, Myri­ad ar­gues in the doc­u­ments filed against Ambry, it has re­tained 515 of 520 pat­ent claims re­gard­ing the test.

This is­sue is go­ing to get an­oth­er go-around in the courts, as Ambry has coun­ter­sued, cit­ing an­ti­trust vi­ol­a­tions. A lot of money is at stake here for Myri­ad and its com­pet­it­ors. Ac­cord­ing to Ars Tech­nica, Myri­ad hauled in $57 mil­lion from the tests that can cost $3,000 or more. And the in­tro­duc­tion of com­pet­it­ors, however brief, pushed the mar­ket price way down: Ambry star­ted to sell the tests for $2,280; Gene by Gene offered a re­l­at­ive steal at $995. The ge­net­ic-test­ing in­dustry is on the verge of boom­ing, as I re­por­ted in June. By 2021, the na­tion­al costs for ge­net­ic test­ing could rise to $25 bil­lion. Right now, they are around $5 bil­lion.

What We're Following See More »
TRUMP’S ATTORNEY WAS SET TO TESTIFY ON WEDNESDAY
Senate Intel Postpones Testimony by Cohen
2 days ago
THE LATEST
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONSIDERATION
Senate Rejects Effort to Nix SALT Tax Changes
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Senate Democrats on Thursday failed in their first attempt to save the state and local tax deduction, which helps many residents of California and other high-cost states reduce their federal income tax bills. The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47 to reject an amendment that would have prevented the Senate from considering any bill that repeals or limits the deduction as part of a planned tax overhaul."

Source:
INTERVIEWED BY COMMITTEE STAFF
Lewandowski Meets with Senate Intelligence Committee
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door interview with the Senate intelligence committee Wednesday, according to a source familiar with the matter. Lewandowski is the latest senior official in Trump's orbit who has met with the committee as part of its investigation into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign."

Source:
FISHING EXPEDITION
Some Members Seek to Wrap Up Russia Investigations by Year’s End
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"A growing number of key Republicans are sending this message to the leaders of the congressional committees investigating potential Trump campaign collusion with the Russians: Wrap it up soon. In the House and Senate, several Republicans who sit on key committees are starting to grumble that the investigations have spanned the better part of the past nine months, contending that the Democratic push to extend the investigation well into next year could amount to a fishing expedition."

Source:
WROTE LAW THAT WEAKENED OPIOID OVERSIGHT
Trump: Marino Withdrawing Nomination for Drug Czar
5 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login