This kind of gene patent is not relevant for drug companies who are trying to make therapeutic proteins.
1. if the whole concept of a "gene patent" (as described in this article) were shut down then drug companies will still be fine, since DNA is not the drug, the protein is the drug.
2. On the other hand, if all 25k human genes were patented by many different parties as diagnostic markers (as described in this article), then it wouldn't hurt drug companies either, since that's not where the money really is. And if something turned out to be important for a drug treatment, then at least there is a patent which can be purchased.
3. Actually, if all human genes (and their proteins) were patented to prevent any use by any other parties, then that would be a good thing, because if it turns out that one of them is really useful to treat a disease, then a drug company would be more likely to pursue that as a drug candidate because they could license the patent and protect themselves from generics for a few years to pay off all the R&D costs.
4. if there is a protein or chemical of some sort which is already in the public domain for your intended use and can't be patented - then there is no way to protect your huge investment. This is the worst case scenario for drug companies. Or, if suddenly there was no way to get a patent for a drug based on a naturally occurring chemical of human protein, then that would be bad for business, too.
Also, this whole gene patent thing becomes a little absurd since it now costs only $4000 to sequence the entire human genome. According to this article, Myriad is charging $3000 to sequence 2 different genes (or maybe just to check for a couple common SNPs in those genes?). So, the problem is, what happens when you get your whole genome sequenced? Does the company who does the sequencing need to withhold the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from their product that they return to you? What about all the other "thousands" of gene patents? Maybe when you get your genome sequenced then the company which does it just can't interpret the patented parts of the genome? Well, from this article it look like the interpretation of the gene sequence is unpatentable since it is an "abstract mental step." So, maybe everything is fine and all these patents can exist and we can go ahead and get our genomes sequenced without any fear of getting sued by a Myriad of companies.
> 3. Actually, if all human genes (and their proteins) were patented to prevent any use by any other parties, then that would be a good thing, because if it turns out that one of them is really useful to treat a disease, then a drug company would be more likely to pursue that as a drug candidate because they could license the patent and protect themselves from generics for a few years to pay off all the R&D costs.
Your hypothesis has been tested and empirically shown to be false. Genes that have ever been patented have had less subsequent innovation than genes that have never been patented: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w16213
The reason that this lawsuit is being brought at all is that your interpretation in your final paragraph differs from Myriad's interpretation, so I would not say that everything is 'fine' from either party's perspective.
My understanding is that its not the gene that is patented, but the processes surrounding the isolation of it, or the actual isolated product.
There would be no patent infringement if you sequence an entire genome (including BRCA1 and BRCA2), as you are not dealing with the actual chemical processes or products covered by the patent.
They have a monopoly on their specific test, as it uses the chemical products covered by their patents (although the test aspect of the patent appears to have been thrown out).
Creating a different test based around, say Illumina or SOLiD sequencing is not going to infringe on this patent.
Both Illumina and SOLiD are methods of sequencing by synthesis. Depending on how broadly you interpret the patent, both would potentially cause you to infringe.
The most accurate comparison is source code to binary. DNA is the source code; it gets compiled to protein. It's really hard to say that one is patentable and the other isn't.
1. if the whole concept of a "gene patent" (as described in this article) were shut down then drug companies will still be fine, since DNA is not the drug, the protein is the drug.
2. On the other hand, if all 25k human genes were patented by many different parties as diagnostic markers (as described in this article), then it wouldn't hurt drug companies either, since that's not where the money really is. And if something turned out to be important for a drug treatment, then at least there is a patent which can be purchased.
3. Actually, if all human genes (and their proteins) were patented to prevent any use by any other parties, then that would be a good thing, because if it turns out that one of them is really useful to treat a disease, then a drug company would be more likely to pursue that as a drug candidate because they could license the patent and protect themselves from generics for a few years to pay off all the R&D costs.
4. if there is a protein or chemical of some sort which is already in the public domain for your intended use and can't be patented - then there is no way to protect your huge investment. This is the worst case scenario for drug companies. Or, if suddenly there was no way to get a patent for a drug based on a naturally occurring chemical of human protein, then that would be bad for business, too.
Also, this whole gene patent thing becomes a little absurd since it now costs only $4000 to sequence the entire human genome. According to this article, Myriad is charging $3000 to sequence 2 different genes (or maybe just to check for a couple common SNPs in those genes?). So, the problem is, what happens when you get your whole genome sequenced? Does the company who does the sequencing need to withhold the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from their product that they return to you? What about all the other "thousands" of gene patents? Maybe when you get your genome sequenced then the company which does it just can't interpret the patented parts of the genome? Well, from this article it look like the interpretation of the gene sequence is unpatentable since it is an "abstract mental step." So, maybe everything is fine and all these patents can exist and we can go ahead and get our genomes sequenced without any fear of getting sued by a Myriad of companies.