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
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 »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×