This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented
(35 minutes later)
Human genes may not be patented, but artificially copied DNA can be claimed as intellectual property, the US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously.Human genes may not be patented, but artificially copied DNA can be claimed as intellectual property, the US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously.
The court quashed patents held by a Utah-based firm on two genes believed linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The court quashed patents held by a Utah-based firm on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.
The opinion said DNA came from nature and was not eligible for patenting.The opinion said DNA came from nature and was not eligible for patenting.
The US pharmaceutical industry had warned any blanket ban on gene patents would jeopardise huge investment in gene research and therapies. The US biotechnology industry had warned any blanket ban on such patents would jeopardise huge investment in gene research and therapies.
Thursday's compromise ruling, which had been urged by the Obama administration, is widely expected to shield existing patents involving synthetic molecules known as complementary DNA. "We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Thursday's opinion.
Shares in the company affected, Myriad Genetics, rose after the decision was published. But his ruling said that synthetic molecules known as complementary DNA can be patented "because it is not naturally occurring".
'Different chemical structure''Different chemical structure'
Thursday's compromise decision, which had been urged by the Obama administration, saw shares rise in the company affected, Myriad Genetics.
The legal battle was prompted by a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 2009 that centred on whether companies should be able to patent genes.The legal battle was prompted by a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 2009 that centred on whether companies should be able to patent genes.
Currently, researchers and private companies work to isolate genes in order to use them in tests for gene-related illnesses, and in emerging gene therapies.Currently, researchers and private companies work to isolate genes in order to use them in tests for gene-related illnesses, and in emerging gene therapies.
The genes in question are linked to breast and ovarian cancer, and Myriad Genetics developed a test to look for mutations in those genes that might increase the risk of developing cancer. The genes at the centre of the lawsuit are linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad Genetics developed a pioneering test to look for mutations in those genes that might increase the risk of developing cancer.
The company, based in Salt Lake City, argued that the genes patented were "isolated" by them, making them products of human ingenuity and therefore patentable. Myriad, based in Salt Lake City, argued that the genes in question had been "isolated" by the company, making them products of human ingenuity and therefore patentable.
But the ACLU argued that genes are products of nature, and therefore cannot be patented under US laws.But the ACLU argued that genes are products of nature, and therefore cannot be patented under US laws.
In 2010 a New York federal court ruled in favour of the ACLU.In 2010 a New York federal court ruled in favour of the ACLU.
But an appeals court on two separate occasions sided with Myriad. It said DNA isolated from the human body had a "markedly different chemical structure" from other human genetic material.But an appeals court on two separate occasions sided with Myriad. It said DNA isolated from the human body had a "markedly different chemical structure" from other human genetic material.
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling largely sided with the ACLU.
"Genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible... simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material," Justice Thomas wrote.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote "the portion of the DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state".
Sandra Park, a lawyer for the ACLU, welcomed the decision.
"Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued," she said.
Universities and medical research firms have been able to claim intellectual property over human genes for nearly three decades.Universities and medical research firms have been able to claim intellectual property over human genes for nearly three decades.
According to researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in the US, patents now cover some 40% of the human genome.According to researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in the US, patents now cover some 40% of the human genome.