13 June 2013 Last updated at 12:34 ET <\/p>\n
Human genes may not be patented, but artificially copied DNA can be claimed as intellectual property, the US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously. <\/p>\n
The court quashed patents held by a Utah-based firm on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. <\/p>\n
The opinion said DNA came from nature and was not eligible for patenting. <\/p>\n
The US biotechnology industry had warned any blanket ban on such patents would jeopardise huge investment in gene research and therapies. <\/p>\n
\"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,\" Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Thursday's opinion. <\/p>\n
But his ruling said that synthetic molecules known as complementary DNA can be patented \"because it is not naturally occurring\". <\/p>\n
Myriad Genetics, the company at the heart of the lawsuit, saw its shares rise after Thursday's compromise decision. <\/p>\n
Jason Palmer Science reporter, BBC News <\/p>\n
The key to Thursday's ruling is an interpretation of how much modification of a natural product makes it an invention. But what is at stake is the development of an industry that makes good use of our genetic material. Absolute dominion over the use of a snippet of genetic information might stifle competition, but leaving it as a gift of nature free of commerce could deter innovation. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Originally posted here: 13 June 2013 Last updated at 12:34 ET Human genes may not be patented, but artificially copied DNA can be claimed as intellectual property, the US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously. The court quashed patents held by a Utah-based firm on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The opinion said DNA came from nature and was not eligible for patenting. Continue reading
\nUS Supreme Court bans DNA patents<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"