Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 34, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 921-926

  Chandrasekharan, Subhashini ^a   Mcguire, Amy L ^b   Van den Veyver, Ignatia B ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CELL FREE SYSTEM; COURT; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC DIAGNOSTICS; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LABORATORY; LAW; LAW SUIT; MATERNAL BLOOD; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS; MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY; PATENT; PRENATAL CARE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; GENE; HEALTH SERVICE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PROCEDURES; UNITED STATES;

GENES; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; PATENTS AS TOPIC; PRENATAL CARE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84908222676     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4445     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. Petitioners v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., States, SCotU (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, 2013.
2. Marshall E. Intellectual property. Supreme Court rules out patents on 'natural' genes. Science 2013;340: 1387-8.
3. Rai AK, Cook-Deegan R. Genetics. Moving beyond "isolated" gene patents. Science 2013;341:137-8.
4. Gold RE, Cook-Deegan R, Bubela T. AMP v. Myriad: a surgical strike on blockbuster business models. Sci Transl Med 2013;5:192ed9.
5. Offit K, Bradbury A, Storm C, et al. Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2743-8.
6. Ledford H. Myriad ruling causes confusion. Nature 2013; 498:281-2.
7. Myriad diagnostic concerns. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:571.
8. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products. Alexandria, VA: 2014 (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_guidance.pdf)
9. U.S. Government printing office. United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 35 - Patents. Part II - Patentability of inventions and grant of patents. Ch. 10 - Patentability of inventions. Sec. 101 - inventions patentable [WWW document]. URL http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/pdf/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap10-sec101.pdf [accessed on October 1, 2013].
10. DNA Patent Database. URL: http://dnapatents.georgetown.edu/ [accessed on October 1, 2013].
11. Jensen K, Murray F. Intellectual property. Enhanced: intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 2005;310:239-40.
12. Hopkins MM, Mahdi S, Patel P, et al. DNA patenting: the end of an era? Nat Biotechnol 2007;25:185-7.
13. Graff GD, Phillips D, Lei Z, et al. Not quite a myriad of gene patents. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:404-10.
14. Dotinga W. No Injunction Against Test for Genetic Defects. Courthouse News Service. 2012. URL http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/09/48194.htm [accessed on September 1, 2013].
15. Schauinger S. Human Gene Patent Report. HGPR-2012. URL: http://hgpr.org/finalHGPR.pdf [accessed on April 1, 2014].
16. Chandrasekharan S, Heaney C, James T, et al. Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. Genet Med 2010;12:S194-211.
17. Chandrasekharan S, Cook-Deegan R. Gene patents and personalized medicine - what lies ahead? Genome Med 2009; 1:92.
18. Holman CM. Genetics. Trends in human gene patent litigation. Science 2008;322:198-9.
19. American Civil Liberties Union. BRCA - Plaintiff Biographies. ACLU, 2009 URL http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-womens-rights/brca-plaintiff-biographies [accessed on October 1, 2013].
20. Supreme Court of the United States. Mayo v. Prometheus, rule number 10-1150. 566 U. S. ____, SCotU (ed.). 2012 URL: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf [accessed on October 1, 2013].
21. United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. C 11-06391 SI, 2013. URL: http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/media/Illston-order-sequenom_0.pdf [accessed on April 1, 2014].
22. United States District Court District of Utah, Central Division. University of Utah Research Foundation vs. Ambry Genetics Corporation. Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2014; URL: https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?214md2510-7. [accessed on April 1, 2014]
23. Myriad. Press Release: BRCA Patent Owners and Gene by Gene, Ltd. Resolve Patent Suit. February 7, 2014 URL: http://investor.myriad.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=824154. [accessed on April 1, 2014].
24. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics 2:13-cv-00640-RJS Document 2 Filed 07/09/13. 2013. URL: http://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/university-of-utah-et-al-v-ambry---2_13cv00640-rjs.pdf [accessed on October 14, 2013]
25. Property rights. Nature 2009; 458:386.
26. Cook-Deegan R, Conley JM, Evans JP, et al. The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets? Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:585-8.
27. Rosenfeld J, Mason CE. Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome. Genome Med 2013;5:27.
28. Kepler TB, Crossman C, Cook-Deegan R. Metastasizing patent claims on BRCA1. Genomics 2010;95:312-4.
29. Cook-Deegan R, Chandrasekharan S, Angrist M. The dangers of diagnostic monopolies. Nature 2009;458:405-6.
30. Van Overwalle G. Intellectual property. Turning patent swords into shares. Science 2010;330:1630-1.
31. Huys I, Berthels N, Matthijs G, et al. Legal uncertainty in the area of genetic diagnostic testing. Nat Biotechnol 2009; 27:903-9.
32. Huys I, Matthijs G, Van Overwalle G. The fate and future of patents on human genes and genetic diagnostic methods. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:441-8.
33. Genomeweb staff reporter. Counsyl Files for Declaratory Judgment that It's not Infringing Myriad's BRCA Patent Claims, 2013 URL http://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/counsyl-files-declaratory-judgment-its-not-infringing-myriads-brca-patent-claims [accessed on October 10, 2013].
34. United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Counsyl v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 1-3-13-cv-04391-NC, 2013. URL: http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/cpg/BRCA-resources/documents/CounsylvMyriad1-3-13-cv-04391-NC20Sept2013.pdf. [accessed on April 1, 2014].
35. Drusedau M, Dreesen JC, Derks-Smeets I, et al. PGD for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: the route to universal tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Eur J Hum Genet 2013; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.50.
36. Derks-Smeets IAP, Verpoest W, Mackens S, et al. Feasibility of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: report on a large cohort study. European Society of Human Reproduction and Endcorincology 2012; Abstract I12-0968 [WWW document]. URL http://www.eshre.eu/~/media/emagic%20files/Press%20room/Annual%20meeting/Istanbul/Abstract%20Verpoest.pdf [accessed on October 1, 2013].
37. Allison M. Genomic testing reaches into the womb. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:595-601.
38. Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, et al. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33:521-31.
39. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Aria Diagnostics vs Sequenom Inc. 2012-1531; August 9, 2013. URL: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1531.Opinion.1538-1537-2013.1531.PDF [accessed on April 1, 2014]