[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] on Friday heard arguments in Association for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office (AMP), an ongoing case that challenged a Utah company’s patent on two genes associated with breast and ovarian cancers. The three-judge panel is rehearing the case on remand from the US Supreme Court [official website] based on the court’s March decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], in which it ruled that in order for something to be patentable it must add enough to a natural phenomena to make it different than anything found in nature. AMP concerns Myriad Genetics [official website] patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 [NCI backgrounder], isolated human genes that differ from native genes in that the process of extracting them results in changes in their molecular structure, although not in their genetic code. Arguing that the process of isolating genetic material from a human DNA molecule does not make the isolated genetic material (cDNA) a patentable invention, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) [advocacy websites; press release] in 2009 filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) [official website], which then invalidated all of Myriad’s patents [JURIST report]. In a 2-1 ruling the Federal Circuit Mayo “gave new vigor” to the principles used in determining whether a product of nature has been “transformed” enough to make it patentable, and that it supports the conclusion that cDNA is not patentable material. The same three-judge panel is sitting to rehear the case.

The ACLU and PUPAT are concerned that these types of patents limit the amount of research that can be done and the availability of diagnostic tests associated with these genes to women in need. They filed a petition for certiorari [JURIST report] in the Supreme Court in 2011 after the Federal Circuit ruling that the patents were valid. This decision was contrary to the position of the Obama administration, which filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the ACLU and PUBPAT. JURIST Guest Columnist Doreen Hogle [official profile] argued that the Mayo decision raised questions as to what innovations are subject to patent law protection and may result in stifled investment in technology [JURIST comment].