Today, we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appellate court’s 2-1 ruling upholding patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The case challenges patents that pose a serious barrier to using new discoveries in genetic testing and how genes influence the way cancers develop and can be treated.
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are two of the 23,000 genes in the human genome, 20 percent of which have been patented. We all have these genes, but women with certain genetic mutations are estimated to have up to an 85 percent risk for breast cancer and 50 percent risk for ovarian cancer. Myriad Genetics obtained patents on the “isolated” forms of the two genes, which simply means it obtained a patent on the human gene once it has been removed from the cell. It does not matter whether the genes come from you, me or any of the other 285 million people in the U.S., or whether you have a mutation or not – the patents claim them all. Even though laboratories around the country are fully capable of providing genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (and were already testing patients before the patents forced them to stop), the patents in essence give a monopoly over these genes.
As a result, Myriad has the power to dictate the cost of testing, which insurance is accepted, which mutations are looked for or excluded in testing, whether any other lab will be allowed to do testing or even confirmatory testing on these genes, whether to incorporate the latest developments in genetic testing, and what research is pursued – without competition. This is different from patenting a test; another lab would not be blocked in the same way because they could develop a new and better test without violating the first patent. Nobody can “invent” a person’s BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.
The district court invalidated all of the challenged patents in 2010 because they claim a “product of nature” and a “law of nature,” but the court of appeals reversed that ruling the following year. The majority focused on the trivial changes that occur when removing a gene from the cell. As the dissenting judge pointed out, this is no different from arguing that a kidney removed from a person for transplant or a leaf snapped from a tree becomes patentable because they are now taken out of their natural environment.
We petitioned the Supreme Court, and in March, the Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and ordered further consideration in light of Mayo v. Prometheus, a case where the court unanimously invalidated a medical patent.
But last month, the court of appeals issued a ruling very similar to its first, with two of the three judges upholding the patents on genes. So we are seeking review from the Supreme Court again, and we hope the Court will take up this important question. Gene patents stand in the way of advancements in medicine that could benefit all of us, as recognized by the diverse group of scientists, physicians, and patients who brought this case, including the Association for Molecular Pathology, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, and Breast Cancer Action (represented by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation). Many others strongly support our efforts, such as the American Medical Association, American Society of Human Genetics, March of Dimes, AARP, Dr. James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA’s double helical structure), Kaiser Permanente, Southern Baptist Convention, Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered. The U.S. government filed two briefs concluding that patents on DNA are invalid.
We’ll keep you updated on what happens next, but if you want to express your support, share our video below and join our Take Back Our Genes! campaign.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
<!--
%3Ciframe%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2F6h6X46-qz14%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
-->
Learn more about gene patenting: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.