The exclusion of genes as they exist in the human body has no effect – every genetic sequence by definition is isolated
Alex Moss, 24 - the executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute. She was previously at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a patent litigator at Sullivan & Cromwell. After graduating from Stanford Law School, she served as a judicial clerk to the Honorable Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. “Patent Eligibility Limits are Vital to Innovation, Prosperity, and Public Health” 2/21,
Of particular concern is a bill that would authorize patents on isolated human genes, such as those associated with conditions like cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and muscular dystrophy. PERA would similarly authorize patents on isolated genes from other biological organisms, including pathogens, such as COVID-19. It would also authorize patents on any use or transmission of the information these genes convey, allowing the Patent Office to grant corporations exclusive rights to the use of life-saving medical knowledge that could help diagnose and treat people who are currently suffering, as well as to predict our risks of developing diseases in the future.
Some contend that the bill’s provision against patenting an “unmodified human gene” as it “exists in the human body” effectively mitigates the enormous harms that would result from a return to patenting human genes. Not so. Isolated genes fall outside that narrow provision because they are modified and do not exist as such in the human body. In fact, this exclusion would have no practical effect because it is impossible to use unmodified genes “as they exist in the human body,” including for medical diagnostics and other types of testing.