Myriad Genetics's patents on human genes became quite controversial. Following the discovery by
Mary-Claire King that a gene on chromosome 17 is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, which led to the landmark
Supreme Court decision
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. which ruled these patents illegal. Because genes occur naturally in every human, in addition to raising moral questions, some believe that patents constitute an obstacle to biomedical research worldwide. Additionally, the discovery of their relevance to breast cancer was funded by the public.
Patent lawsuits In 2010–2013 Myriad Genetics was a defendant in the case
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (formerly
Association For Molecular Pathology et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office). Lawyers at the
ACLU served as counsel for the plaintiffs. In the suit, medical associations, doctors, and patients sued Myriad Genetics to challenge seven United States
patents on
genes related to
breast cancer and
ovarian cancer. Two of the company's patents on the
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 genes, which are inherited gene mutations that link to around half of the 5%–10% of inherited gene mutating breast cancer cases in the US[27], were ruled invalid on March 29, 2010, by Judge
Robert W. Sweet in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 7, 2011, the ACLU filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari to the
Supreme Court. On March 26, 2012, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., in which the Supreme Court had ruled, just six days earlier, that more restrictive rules were required to patent observations about natural phenomena. On August 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Myriad's right to patent the genes (because isolated genes are different from their natural state, using its own precedent in
Amgen v. Chugai Pharmaceutical), although they denied
patent claims on methods comprising comparison of DNA sequences, as unpatentable "mental acts". On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a second challenge to the two gene patents held by Myriad. Oral argument took place on April 15, 2013. On June 13, 2013, in
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (No. 12-398), the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated", invalidating Myriad's patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. However, the Court also held that manipulation of a gene to create something not found in naturesuch as a strand of synthetically-produced complementary DNA (cDNA)could still be eligible for patent protection. Myriad Genetics has also been involved in litigation in Australia over the patentability of
DNA sequences (''D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc
(2015)). Regarding BRCA1, the company succeeded in the Federal Court, both at first instance and on appeal to the full court, but in October 2015 lost in a unanimous decision of the High Court, D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc''. ==See also==