Myriad Genetics shares surge after mixed ruling from Supreme Court on gene patentability
By Associated Press
June 13, 2013
TRENTON, N.J. — Shares of diagnostic test maker Myriad Genetics Inc. surged Thursday after the Supreme Court handed the company a partial victory in a battle over validity of Myriad patents underlying its lucrative test for genes linked to high risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
The ruling likely will eventually benefit rivals, as well as doctors and patents wanting to determine the best course of treatment.
Myriad, based in Salt Lake City, sells a popular test for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes linked to hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancer — the only test currently available because of its patents. They were challenged by a scientists group, leading to the Supreme Court’s review, even though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years.
The high court ruled that genes naturally found in the body cannot be patented, but that synthetically created genetic material, called complementary or cDNA, can be patented. Patents enable inventors to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device or process they’ve created.
While Myriad said the ruling will preserve its revenue from the test, other experts said it will open the door for competing tests and for scientists to do gene-related disease research without restraints.
“We are very pleased with the outcome,” which ends four years of litigation, Myriad’s general counsel, Rick Marsh, told The Associated Press in an interview.
He said the ruling invalidates only five Myriad patent claims, which involve isolated bits of naturally occurring DNA. That’s out of more than 500 separate claims in 24 patents the company holds for the company’s BRACAnalysis test, launched in 1996 and used by more than a million women so far.
“The balance of our patent estate is still valid and enforceable,” Marsh said.
He said the court’s ruling upholds Myriad’s “method” patent claims, those detailing specific processes for testing patients’ genes for their cancer susceptibility, as well as ones covering cDNA. That is the synthetic DNA — created to look like the natural DNA at issue — that Myriad uses in its testing of patient samples.
Marsh said the ruling is not expected to decrease revenues for sales of the BRACAnalysis test, the top seller for the Salt Lake City-based company.
“I think that’s why you’re seeing a market reaction,” he added, referring to a big jump in the price of Myriad stock following the ruling.
In early afternoon trading Thursday, Myriad shares were up 5.4 percent, or $2.36, at $35.73. They had earlier set a 52-week high at $38.27, with trading volume more than nine times the daily average of 1.1 million shares.
However, Jeffrey Rosenfeld, a researcher and assistant professor at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, said the ruling is good news for researchers, who now will be able to sequence genes to try to better understand diseases and to create new treatments — without fear of being sued by companies such as Myriad...
Supreme Court says human genes cannot be patented
The Washington Post
June 13, 2013
The Supreme Court says companies cannot patent human genes, a decision that could profoundly affect the medical and biotechnology industries.
In a unanimous decision, the court struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law
Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law
By Robert Barnes
June 28, 2012
Washington Post
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to save the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, agreeing that the requirement for nearly all Americans to secure health insurance is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.
Even as it upheld that central component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, however, the court modified another key provision of the law, ruling that the federal government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that decide not to participate in a broad expansion of Medicaid eligibility.
The court’s historic compromise, which will affect the health-care choices of millions of Americans, amounts to a major victory for the White House less than five months before the November elections, although the Medicaid decision sets new limits on the power of the national government.
President Obama welcomed the ruling, which he called “a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure.” He said the decision would allow the health-care law to offer millions of currently uninsured Americans “an array of quality, affordable health-insurance plans to choose from” starting in 2014.
“Today the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance,” Obama said in televised speech at the White House. He said he knew that this individual mandate “wouldn’t be politically popular” and that the debate over the law “has been divisive.” But he said the law was “good for the country” and “good for the American people.”
“The highest court in the land has now spoken,” Obama said. “We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do, what the country can’t afford to do, is refight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were. With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward.”
Illustrating the divided nature of the ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, representing the court’s most consistent conservatives, read a scathing dissent, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, representing the liberals, issued a separate opinion supporting Roberts but differing with him on key aspects of the case...
By Robert Barnes
June 28, 2012
Washington Post
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to save the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, agreeing that the requirement for nearly all Americans to secure health insurance is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.
Even as it upheld that central component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, however, the court modified another key provision of the law, ruling that the federal government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that decide not to participate in a broad expansion of Medicaid eligibility.
The court’s historic compromise, which will affect the health-care choices of millions of Americans, amounts to a major victory for the White House less than five months before the November elections, although the Medicaid decision sets new limits on the power of the national government.
President Obama welcomed the ruling, which he called “a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure.” He said the decision would allow the health-care law to offer millions of currently uninsured Americans “an array of quality, affordable health-insurance plans to choose from” starting in 2014.
“Today the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance,” Obama said in televised speech at the White House. He said he knew that this individual mandate “wouldn’t be politically popular” and that the debate over the law “has been divisive.” But he said the law was “good for the country” and “good for the American people.”
“The highest court in the land has now spoken,” Obama said. “We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do, what the country can’t afford to do, is refight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were. With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward.”
Illustrating the divided nature of the ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, representing the court’s most consistent conservatives, read a scathing dissent, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, representing the liberals, issued a separate opinion supporting Roberts but differing with him on key aspects of the case...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)