Background
Two significant genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have a well-established link to an elevated risk of ovarian and breast cancer, were the subject of the Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) case. They owned the only patents that made it possible for Myriad Genetics Inc. to separate, sequence, and analyse these genes. The Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP) vigorously contested the patents, claiming that since genes are found naturally, they shouldn’t be shielded from legal action. Following a careful consideration of the case, the US Supreme Court rendered a decision. It concluded that isolated DNA sequences are not eligible for patent protection because they are natural phenomena. On the other hand, the Court decided that because cDNA is a synthetic substance that is produced from mRNA, it is eligible for patent protection.
In the case of D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc., [2015] HCA 35 (Australia), the Australian High Court deliberated over nearly identical issues. The Australian Patent Office had awarded a patent on the BRCA1 gene, which was at issue in this case. The Court decided that since the isolated gene sequence was a natural phenomenon, it could not be patented. The Court further decided that the technique of detecting the gene’s claims were not innovative enough to be eligible for patent protection.
Court’s decision
I support the rulings made by the courts in both cases for a number of reasons. First of all, genes are naturally occurring and patenting them would be inappropriate. According to the US Supreme Court, “Myriad did not create or alter either the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes or the genetic structure of the DNA” . As a result, patenting genes would equate to monopolies on natural products, which is contrary to the objective behind the patent system.
Secondly, research and innovation may be hindered by gene patents. A firm that owns the exclusive rights to a gene may be able to stop other people from studying the gene or creating diagnostics or treatments based on it. This may impede medical advancement and restrict access to care. According to the US Supreme Court, “Myriad’s patent claims, by contrast, focus on the information contained in the genetic sequence, and that is precisely what makes them ineligible for patent protection” . This explanation is in line with the utilitarian argument, which maintains that intellectual property rights should encourage societal welfare and innovation. As previously mentioned, gene patents may hinder research and innovation and have detrimental effects on public health. As a result, the utilitarian theory would not support the patenting of genes.
Thirdly, the public health may suffer as a result of gene patents. A business that has the sole rights to a gene may demand exorbitant fees for gene-related diagnostics or treatments. Patients may find it more difficult to receive healthcare as a result, which may result in health inequalities. According to the High Court of Australia, “The patentee’s monopoly, by excluding others from using or exploiting the invention, may deprive the public of the benefits that would have flowed from those activities” . This justification is in line with the social justice thesis, which maintains that IPR ought to advance equality and social justice. As previously mentioned, gene patents may result in health disparities and hinder patients’ access to medical care. Thus, it would be against the social fairness idea to give patents on genes.
Relevance to Theories of IPR
Various interpretations of intellectual property rights (IPR) are supported by the rulings in the cases of D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc. and Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. First of all, they align with the labour theory, which maintains that people are naturally entitled to the products of their labour. However, as genes are natural phenomena, their creation does not entail human labour. As a result, the labour theory would conflict with the patenting of genes.
Second, the rulings align with the utilitarian approach, which maintains that intellectual property rights should encourage social welfare and innovation. As previously mentioned, gene patents may hinder research and innovation and have detrimental effects on public health. As a result, the utilitarian theory would not support the patenting of genes.
Impact of these cases on future cases
Positive outcomes have resulted from the rulings in D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc. and Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. First of all, they have made sure that genes are still accessible for study and development and stay in the public domain. This has advanced science and made it possible to create novel gene-related diagnostics and treatments.
Second, by making these choices, everyone will continue to have access to inexpensive healthcare. The rulings have stopped businesses from charging exorbitant fees for gene-related testing and treatments by prohibiting them from acquiring exclusive rights to genes. Patients now have easier access to healthcare, and health disparities have decreased as a result.
Thirdly, social justice and equality have benefited from the decisions. The verdicts have ensured that health disparities are decreased and that everyone has equitable access to healthcare by prohibiting firms from having exclusive rights to genes.
In addition, the rulings in these cases have established a standard for gene patent cases in the future. The decisions have made it abundantly evident that businesses cannot acquire exclusive rights to genes and that they are not patentable. This has enabled for further advancement in the study of genetics and given clarity and confidence for researchers, medical professionals, and patients.
It’s crucial to remember that these cases’ rulings do not imply that all genetics-related patents are invalid. Patents covering techniques involving genes or genetic information might still be enforceable if they satisfy the conditions necessary to be considered patentable. Furthermore, the rulings do not preclude businesses from making money off of their genetics-related research and development projects. Businesses are still able to make money from the creation of gene-related diagnostics and treatments as well as by obtaining patents on artificial DNA sequences that do not occur naturally.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the rulings in D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc. and Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. were essential to advancing social justice, welfare, and science. Since genes are natural things, patents should not be granted for them. Gene patents have the potential to hinder research and innovation, harm public health, and result in health disparities. Consequently, the decisions made by the courts were required to further the common welfare. The rulings aligned with several conceptions of intellectual property rights, such as the utilitarian and labour theories. The rulings have had a number of beneficial effects, such as advancing science, making healthcare more widely available and reasonably priced, and advancing social justice and equality.
The courts’ rulings have established a balance between the public’s and patent holders’ interests. The legal system has acknowledged that genes are natural products that shouldn’t be owned exclusively by one party. Nonetheless, the courts have acknowledged that businesses ought to be able to make money off of their genetics-related R&D. This harmony has maintained healthcare accessibility and affordability for all while enabling further advancements in the science of genetics.
Furthermore, these court rulings have had a significant impact on the field of genetics. They have said unequivocally that genes are not patentable and cannot be owned solely. This has greatly benefited the area of genetics by giving researchers, healthcare providers, and patients the clarity and assurance they so much needed. Additionally, it has promoted cooperation and knowledge exchange among researchers, advancing their work and yielding fresh insights.
Fundamentally, the decisions rendered in the D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc. and Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. cases have advanced social justice, scientific understanding, and fairness ideals. These rulings are in line with a number of intellectual property theories, such as the labour theory and utilitarian theory, guaranteeing a fair and balanced approach that advances genetic research, helps the general public, and upholds everyone’s equal access to high-quality healthcare.
Author Bio
