I have filed an
amicus brief in support of the Petitioners (original plaintiffs). The brief
makes three central points. First, DNA (and a gene) is a molecule which
requires a specific patent eligibility analysis that accounts for its complexity,
where it is both a chemical and a template. The genetic code is embodied in
DNA, and is a law of nature; patenting of genes preempts the genetic code
because it violates the prohibition on patenting laws of nature. Second, the gene is ineligible for patenting as a product of nature; that analysis requires
that the structure and the function of a proposed invention be considered. The
isolated gene retains its natural structure and implements its natural
function, and there is not an inventive distinction between the cellular gene
and the isolated gene, violating the prohibition on patenting products of
nature. Third, the symmetry formulation for patent eligibility from the Court’s Mayo v. Prometheus decision last year requires
that a patent be scored for its inventive contribution, measured against its potential to limit innovation. When that comparison is applied to gene
patenting, I conclude that because gene discovery does not qualify as an inventive
contribution (based on the previous two arguments above) and because the patenting
of genes has exacted demonstrable costs on innovation in the genetic testing
field, the resulting asymmetry violates Mayo’s requirement that the costs of a patent not exceed its benefits.
The brief concludes, based on all of these arguments, that the Court should invalidate
the patent claims to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
No comments:
Post a Comment