Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Persistent confusion and controversy surrounding gene patents

Nature Biotechnology volume 34, pages 145–147 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

The development of patent-specific educational resources and prompt resolution of patentability rules unsettled by recent US Supreme Court decisions are urgently needed in the genomics industry.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are evolving at a rapid pace. At the same time, the legal landscape in which these technologies are being developed and used is also changing. Many of these changes are small regulatory adjustments, whereas others represent seismic shifts in the law. For example, in 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act (AIA), which changed the basic nature of the US patent system from one that awarded patents to first inventors to one that awards patents to first applicants1. Two years later, the US Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA is not patentable2, overturning decades of precedent and calling into question the validity of thousands of patent claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).

  2. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013).

  3. Curnutte, M.A., Frumovitz, K.L., Bollinger, J.M., McGuire, A.L. & Kaufman, D.J. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 980–982 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Christensen, K.D. et al. Clin. Genet. published online, doi:10.1111/cge.12626 (7 July 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Collier, R. CMAJ 184, E467–E468 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dressler, L.G., Jones, S.S., Markey, J.M., Byerly, K.W. & Roberts, M.C. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers 18, 131–140 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 35 USC § 101.

  8. Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).

  9. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  10. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

  11. Noonan, K.E. Patent Docs http://www.patentdocs.org/2015/06/ariosa-diagnostics-inc-v-sequenom-inc-fed-cir-2015.html (22 June 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 2014 Interim guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. Fed. Regist. 79, 74618–74633 (2014).

  13. USPTO. Nature-based product examples (2014).

  14. USPTO. Abstract idea examples (2015).

  15. Haanes, E.J. pp. 43–64 in Developing a Patent Strategy (Thomas Reuters/Aspatore, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 35 USCA § 299.

  17. Shen, D. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 29, 545–586 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Noonan, K.E. Patent Docs http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/03/panel-on-multidistrict-litigation-consolidates-myriad-cases-in-utah-district-court.html (19 March 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cook-Deegan, R. & Chandrasekharan, S. J. Law Med. Ethics 42 Suppl 1, 42–50 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Holzapfel, H. & Sarnoff, J. IDEA 48, 123–381 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 35 USC § 271(e)(1).

  22. 35 USC § 287(c).

  23. 35 USC § 284.

  24. 35 USC §§ 102–103.

  25. Demmer, L.A. & Waggoner, D.J. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 15, 507–516 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Srinivasan, M. et al. Genet. Med. 13, 553–562 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hurle, B. et al. Genet. Med. 15, 658–663 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Korf, B.R. et al. Genet. Med. 16, 804–809 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dubois, J.M. & Dueker, J.M. J. Res. Adm. 40, 49–70 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by National Human Genome Research Institute grant RO1-HG006460.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Christi J. Guerrini, Mary A. Majumder and Amy L. McGuire are at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.,

    Christi J Guerrini, Mary A Majumder & Amy L McGuire

Authors
  1. Christi J Guerrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary A Majumder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy L McGuire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christi J Guerrini.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guerrini, C., Majumder, M. & McGuire, A. Persistent confusion and controversy surrounding gene patents. Nat Biotechnol 34, 145–147 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3470

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3470

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research