Alert
Close

Watch the NASCAR race on Sunday at Martinsville Speedway. Join the Drive to End Hunger!

DONATE

Be part of the solution.

Help AARP Foundation win back opportunity for struggling Americans 50 and over.

Charity Rating

AARP Foundation earns high rating for accountability from a leading charity evaluator. Read

Connect with the
Foundation

Email:

foundation@aarp.org

 

Toll-free Nationwide:

888-OUR-AARP

(888-687-2277)

 

Toll-free TTY:

877-434-7598

 

AARP Foundation Tax ID

52-0794300

Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

U.S. Supreme Court's Mixed Ruling Expected to Open Doors for Consumers

    

 

The Court’s mixed ruling rejects patent giving Myriad the exclusive right to test and isolate breast and ovarian cancer genes while leaving unanswered questions.

Background

Myriad Genetics held exclusive patents on two human genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) that relate to a person’s predisposition to developing breast and ovarian cancer. Because of its patents, Myriad was the only provider of BRCA genetic testing in the United States.  

A woman’s risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer is greatly increased if she inherits a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Individuals whose families have a history of cancer can benefit by a genetic blood test to determine if they have the mutation, and early detection opens several options including preemptive surgery.

Because of its patents, Myriad has prohibited other labs and medical professionals from conducting tests on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, hindering the ability of patients to seek a second opinion. Myriad charges between $3,000 and $4,000 for its BRCA genetic test.

A coalition of nonprofit organizations, scientists, professors, genetic counselors, and individuals at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer filed a lawsuit alleging that Myriad’s patents on genes violate the Constitution and patent laws. They argue that human genes and DNA molecules are natural phenomena that are not the kind of “discovery” covered by patent laws.

AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys filed AARP’s friend-of-the-court briefs (five in all) pointing out that patent law did not envision patenting natural phenomena. Patents stifle scientific research for cures for genetic diseases, elevate the already high cost of genetic testing, and limit patient access to potentially life-saving tests.

The Supreme Court ruled that discovering a human gene and removing (isolating) the gene from the human body was not patent eligible but that creating a synthetic version of the gene was patent eligible.  Myriad will no longer be the sole option for patients desiring BRCA testing and other medical professionals are free to remove the genes for diagnostic testing.  The Court’s ruling upholding synthetic DNA, or cDNA, leaves unanswered questions regarding the impact of patents on synthetic DNA or whether cDNA meets other standards of patentability.  The Court also left unanswered which applications of new knowledge about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are patent eligible.

What’s At Stake

This case will impact the cost and availability of genetic tests. The ruling is expected to lower the cost of genetic testing and increase patient access to the test. Genetic diagnostic tests can determine how a patient will respond to a specific drug or a patient’s risk for developing a number of diseases.

Case Status

The Association for Molecular Pathology. v. Myriad Genetics was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Search Legal Advocacy

Find
Legal Cases

Find the most recent cases in which AFL has advocated in courts nationwide for the rights of older persons, and filed AARP’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that help courts decide precedent-setting cases.

Strengthening Law and Policy through
Legal Advocacy

Our legal advocacy initiatives  - conducted by AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL) - reflect more than 15 years of work in federal and state courts across the country. Through our efforts, we support the Foundation’s four priority areas: Hunger, Income, Housing and Isolation, and ensure that those 50 and older have a voice in the laws and policies that affect their daily lives.