[JURIST] The Federal court of Australia [official website] has upheld [judgment] a ruling allowing US-based genetic testing company Myriad Genetics [corporate website] to retain its patent for genetic material (DNA and RNA) it has isolated from human cells. Patient advocacy group Cancer Voices Australia (CVA) [advocacy website] appealed a February 2013 court ruling that approved the patentability of nucleic acids that the company has been able to extract from mutated versions of the BRCA1 gene, a gene that has been linked with certain cancers, including ovarian and breast cancer. By studying the naturally occurring mutations within the BRCA1 gene, scientists can better predict [The Scientist report] whether a woman is at risk for certain breast and ovarian cancers. CVA argues that the patenting of naturally occurring genetic material “places limits on genetic testing, genetic research and the development of treatments and cures for genetically associated disease.” The court emphasized that, because the genetic material at issue has been isolated, “it distinguishes the product as artificial and economically useful” and therefore properly patentable.

The Australian court decision contrasts with the US Supreme Court’s June 2013 ruling [JURIST report] on the same issue. The US court unanimously ruled that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated. During the April 2013 oral arguments [JURIST report], the appellant, Association for Molecular Pathology, argued that Myriad Genetics had not invented anything and is simply trying to patent a product of nature. In November 2012 the US Supreme Court granted [JURIST report] certiorari in the case to review the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s August 2012 ruling [JURIST report] that Myriad had a right to patent the isolated cells because they were “transformed” and Myriad’s method of isolation included steps that were not naturally occurring. The Supreme Court’s decision to review the patent case was the result of a September 2012 petition [JURIST report] by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation