Genes cannot be patented, but copies of them can be

The US Supreme Court banned the patenting of human DNA

BBCThe US Supreme Court ruled that companies do not have the right to patent human genes.

However, according to a court decision, copies of DNA obtained artificially can be patented.

The court decided that DNA is a product of nature, and its elements cannot be patented just because it was possible to establish their functions.

This ruling invalidates patents issued by the American company Myriad Genetics. Specialists from this company were the first to offer a test to determine the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women.

From the editorial office:
By 19 o'clock on June 13 (Moscow time), the company's shares had risen by 9.5%.
In our opinion, Egor Voronin commented on the decision of the American court the best in his blog.
Here his text has been slightly edited, and a translation has been added to the English quotations.

Patenting cannot be synthesized

Has anyone already figured out today's Supreme Court decision that a "naturally occurring DNA fragment" cannot be patented, but a "synthesized" one can?

We quote: "We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible solely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring."
(We believe that a natural segment of DNA is a natural product and is not subject to patenting just because it has been isolated, but cDNA can be patented because it does not occur in nature.)

Complementary DNA (cDNA) is DNA complementary to matrix RNA obtained by reverse transcription.
cDNA libraries are usually used for medical tests, including Myriad Genetics tests, which allow you to assess the likelihood of breast cancer by analyzing mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2–VM genes.

I don't understand at all what is now possible and what is not.

By the way, the biological explanations in this document are given at a level at which even at school it is necessary to put deuces. Type:

"Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids, which in turn are used in the body to build proteins. Only some DNA nucleotides, however, code for amino acids; these nucleotides are known as “exons.” Nucleotides that do not code for amino acids, in contrast, are known as “introns.”

(The sequence of DNA nucleotides contains the information necessary to create chains of amino acids, which, in turn, are used in the body to create proteins. However, only some DNA nucleotides encode amino acids; these nucleotides are known as "exons." Nucleotides that do not encode amino acids, on the contrary, are known as "introns").

Or: "The exons-only strand is known as messenger RNA (mRNA), which creates amino acids through translation."
(Chains consisting only of exons are known as matrix RNA (mRNA), which creates amino acids through translation – VM).

Or: "Each codon either tells the ribosomes which of the 20 possible amino acids to synthesize or provides a stop signal that ends amino acid production."
(Each codon either tells the ribosome which of the 20 possible amino acids to synthesize or represents a stop signal that ends the production of an amino acid).

I understand that it is not an abstract sequence that is being patented, but a specific molecule with a certain sequence. Therefore, if you have mRNA or genomic DNA of the BRCA1 gene involved in the production process, then this is a natural molecule, and no one can have a patent for it, and if suddenly you have a piece of DNA with a sequence of cDNA BRCA1 in a test tube, then this can already be patented, because no one in nature has yet I did not find DNA molecules with an mRNA sequence. You made it.

It also seems wrong to me (it is a great invention to synthesize cDNA), but it has some internal logic in a general sense: if such a molecule with this particular sequence is not found in nature, and I received it in a test tube, then this is my invention.

According to this logic, the Myriad patent should not cover various other possible forms of the existence of genetic information (unless it is specifically stipulated there). For example, single-stranded DNA or a DNA-RNA hybrid.

As a result, Myriad won in the fact that their specific test (if I'm not confusing anything) analyzes just cDNA, so they keep their patent. But they didn't get a patent for the sequence itself, so now it's easy to bypass their patent by designing tests that analyze genomic DNA or mRNA without cDNA synthesis (which is also quite possible). But in practice, no one will likely have time to bypass them: the development of a diagnostic test and its passage through the FDA are quite lengthy processes and cost money, so they and their test will remain monopolists until the patent expires.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru14.06.2013