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 »
ANOTHER GOP MODERATE TO HER SIDE
John Warner to Endorse Clinton
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will score another high-powered Republican endorsement on Wednesday, according to a campaign aide: retired senator John Warner of Virginia, a popular GOP maverick with renowned military credentials."

Source:
AUTHORITY OF EPA IN QUESTION
Appeals Court Hears Clean Power Plant Case
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday "heard several hours of oral arguments" over the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan rules. The 10-judge panel "focused much of their questioning on whether the EPA had overstepped its legal authority by seeking to broadly compel this shift away from coal, a move the EPA calls the Best System of Emission Reduction, or BSER. The states and companies suing the EPA argue the agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate anything outside of a power plant itself."

Source:
$28 MILLION THIS WEEK
Here Come the Ad Buys
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Spending by super PACs tied to Donald Trump friends such as Ben Carson and banker Andy Beal will help make this week the general election's most expensive yet. Republicans and Democrats will spend almost $28 million on radio and television this week, according to advertising records, as Trump substantially increases his advertising buy for the final stretch. He's spending $6.4 million in nine states, part of what aides have said will be a $100 million television campaign through Election Day."

Source:
UNLIKELY TO GET A VOTE, LIKELY TO ANGER GOP SENATORS
Obama Nominates Ambassador to Cuba
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP REFUSED VOTE ON FCC COMMISIONER
Reid Blocks Tech Bill Over “Broken Promise”
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Source:
×