A federal judge's decision Monday to strike down several patents on human genes could ultimately be a boon for genetic research and a benefit for public health, medical experts said.

The ruling adds legal weight to the argument by some geneticists and others that companies and institutions shouldn't be allowed to patent basic genetic information that makes people human.

Photo Researchers, Inc.

A human chromosome bears genetic information.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet invalidated seven patents covering the BRCA1 and 2 genes linked to hereditary forms of cancer that were licensed exclusively to Myriad Genetics Inc., Salt Lake City, by the University of Utah Research Foundation. Myriad says it plans to appeal.

The decision's near-term impact on companies that develop and market gene-based tests and treatments is likely to be limited, in part because most rely on patents that protect their drugs, not specific gene sequences.

And Peter Meldrum, Myriad's chief executive, said the litigation involves only seven of the company's 23 patents related to BRCA genes.

Patents for human genes, or DNA sequences found in the body, have been controversial since they were first issued. According to U.S. law, products of nature cannot be patented because they are pre-existing substances found in the wild.

"The idea that our ability to look at them, to analyze them, to utilize them would be constrained by the issue of a patent strikes many people viscerally," said James Evans, chairman of a federal task force on the effect of gene patents on diagnostics and patient care. "Genes represent something we see as quite fundamental to who we are."

When companies hold exclusive licenses for human genes, competition to develop gene-based applications can be restricted, prices inflated and innovation slowed, some geneticists say.

Academic research has also been impeded, though to a lesser extent, by companies who want to protect their intellectual property, they add.

"If this decision is upheld, it in the end is a win for patients and providers," said Dr. Evans, also a medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

...

Lawyers say the ruling could give rise to challenges over patents that cover the links between genetic sequences and various medical conditions, such as hearing loss and Alzheimer's disease.

Judge Sweet's ruling, lawyers say, reflects a broader trend of judges taking a more skeptical view about whether certain subject matters can be patented.

Last year, in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case, many of the justices on the court expressed skepticism about whether there should be broad patent protection for financial strategies and other methods of doing business.