Landmark ruling deems cancer gene patents invalid

A district court judge in the United States has ruled that patents should not have been awarded over the breast and ovarian cancer genes BRCA1 and 2.

The decision raises serious concerns about whether patents should be awarded on human and other genes and proteins found in nature.

It is the first time a court has found patents on genes unlawful and calls into question the validity of patents now held on about 2,000 human genes.

The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was prompted by the actions of patent owner Myriad Genetics who claims the exclusive right to test for BRCA1 and BRCA2.

The tests show whether a woman is more susceptible to developing breast and ovarian cancer.

ACLU attorney Chris Hansen said: “Today’s ruling is a victory for the free flow of ideas in scientific research.”

Myriad Genetics charges women in the US around $3,700 for the test and the company does not allow second opinions.

The exclusive licence for the tests in Australia is owned by Genetic Technologies Limited which has “gifted” its intellectual property rights to Australian institutions and does not impose royalties here.

In 2003 and 2008, however, Genetic Technologies Limited sent legal letters to Westmead Hospital and the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute in Victoria to cease testing for the BRCA1 and 2 genes.

In the district court in New York, Judge Robert Sweet found that certain respects of the seven patents awarded over the human genes are invalid.

Judge Sweet found that removing the gene from its natural environment, the body, is not sufficiently different to what is found in nature, therefore such processes are a “discovery” and not an “invention”, making any patent invalid.

On the diagnostic side, the judgment also says the use of the gene material in the test does not make the test patentable.

There is no transformation that happens to the biological materials themselves that means the company can claim an “invention” and therefore be awarded a patent over the genes.

Myriad Genetics has yet to announce whether it will appeal the decision.

In Australia, a Senate inquiry into gene patents is expected to report in June.

It has heard evidence from both sides of the argument including from Australia’s biotech industry, which says any moves to ban patents on genes will be disastrous for investment and the biotech industry as a whole.

Court judgement could threaten future of UK village green cricket

London, May 14 (ANI): A county court is to rule whether a homeowner can stop his local village cricket team playing because of the threat of players knocking a six on to his roof or into his garden.

In a long running dispute that has more the hallmarks of a bitter divorce than a neighbourly dispute, a judge will be asked to hand down a legal ruling that will have implications for amateur cricketers up and down the country, reports The Telegraph.

It centers on Shamley Green, near Guilford in Surrey, where cricket has been played on its village green for 169 years, despite roads running through the playing area and the backs of houses dotting the boundary.

But four years ago, when Mike Burgess moved into a bungalow on the edge of the boundary and just 25 yards from the crease, all that changed.

Aware that a crisp, square leg pull could run under his gate or through his hedge; or a slog could arrow straight onto his roof, he issued a set of demands that would protect his bungalow.

After a flurry of arguments, legal letters and even a session of independent mediation, Burgess is now asking the court to issue an injunction against the club, preventing it from playing on the green until his demands are met.

They include calling for the club to put up 25ft high nets around his property to protect it from any stray balls, and for players to be declared out if they hit it so hard it clears the nets and hits his property. He also wants a health and safety risk assessment to protect other homeowners and the general public while a match is on.

David Harris, chairman of the cricket club, said it had done all it could to meet Burgess half way and said its future was in doubt if the court ruled against them.

The club has a policy of paying for replacement windows and roof tiles caused by their cricketers.

Burgess, 54, a clinical audit specialist, said: “This has nothing to do with stopping cricket, I like cricket, but the injunction is designed to instigate what needs to be done to create a safe environment.” (ANI)