rjk79

How important is the distinction that the court made that naturally occurring genes are not patentable, but that man made genes (cDNA) still are patent eligible? As someone who understands the law side of this way better than the science part, I have trouble figuring out what the real world result of this distinction is.

How difficult is it to create the desired cDNA? Is it just standard procedure for geneticists? Or is there an important step in creating the desired cDNA that should be worthy of a patent?

Is there only 1 cDNA per naturally occurring gene? Or could you make many different cDNA? My understanding is that Myriad was actually using cDNA as part of the test. Could you create a different cDNA from BRCA1 and BRCA2, and therefore be able to design a test around a patent granted to Myriads cDNA patents? Or do the cDNA claims still effectively grant them a monopoly on any BRCA1/2 test?

Sorry for the string of questions, just appreciate the opportunity to get a better grasp on the science side of things that Justice Scalia and I need. Hopefully these questions at least make sense. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad to hear that you think other tests may be developed around the cDNA patents, that was my hope for the result of this case, and should help spur innovation and competition, always good things.

Although it is disappointing to hear the court missed the boat on cDNA being naturally occurring, it isn't surprising. I think it is just a little too technical and complicated, but maybe it will get corrected somewhere down the line.

Good luck curing cancer.