English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The patentability of human genes and stem cells has been heavily debated in the last decade by members of both the scientific and legal communities. While “[t]he fundamental policy of the patent system is to encourage the creation and disclosure of new, useful, and nonobvious advances in technology and design by granting the inventor the reward of exclusive right to practice the invention for a period of years,” this reward of innovation is not without risk. The patent system must be cautious of the legal monopoly patents provide, which has the potential to bring competition and further innovation to a halt. This balancing act is especially important in biological patenting, where patents have the potential to hinder the research, accessibility, and affordability of diagnostic tests and medical treatments. On June 13, 2013, the United States Supreme Court, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., issued a unanimous landmark decision that held that patents on human genes are invalid because “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” This holding invalidated Myriad Genetics’ patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers. In the weeks following the decision, other biotech companies began offering genetic testing for these genes, and the costs to patients for the preventive tests were significantly lowered. The lower costs of these tests is particularly important considering recent American healthcare reform under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which places an emphasis on affordable and accessible preventative care. While the Myriad decision made human genes ineligible for patents because they are a product of nature, the United States Supreme Court did not extend the holding of Myriad to the patenting of other isolated human biological materials, such as stem cells. Because the Myriad decision did not close the door on the

A Lesson Learned from Myriad: The Affordable Care Act as Both an Incentive and an Alternative for Invalidating Stem Cell Patents