Despite the fact that genetics research institutes and universities in the United States conduct their work with federal money from taxpayers, instances in which they apply for patents on discovered genes and derivative tests are not rare. This has been the subject of mounting criticism, as some believe that a single company should not be the sole holder of the rights to using a gene that can, for example, detect cancer. This is why a new lawsuit is now being brought against Salt Lake City, Utah-based Myriad Genetics, Nature News reports.

The corporation holds some seven patents on the use of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are hallmarks of increased inherited risks of developing breast cancer for women. In other words, if someone is to design a test for these genes, it would need to pay Myriad Genetics. The work that the corporation has put to such lucrative use, for its own profit, was conducted in laboratories at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, with funding awarded from federal sources. Next week, a judge in New York will have to decide whether Myriad should have exclusive rights to conduct diagnostic tests on the genes. The decision will have far-reaching implications on the entire industry, analysts say.

One of the things that could undergo massive transformation following the ruling is patent law. At this point, in the United States, thousands of genes have been patented by various private companies. “The potential impact goes beyond breast-cancer testing,” Biotechnology Industry Organization patent lawyer Hans Sauer, from Washington DC, explains. Companies can actively enforce their patents, as evidenced by the course of action Myriad took after obtaining its seven patents. It went as far as forcing the shutting down of other BRCA researches at university laboratories, which many still consider to be an abuse.

Behind the lawsuit against the Utah company are the Public Patent Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). When they filed their claims, in May 2009, the law experts at the two organizations argued that patenting a natural gene was unconstitutional. They also said that the Myriad should not be allowed to have monopoly on this market, and that competition and alternative tests should not be discouraged. Some analysts say that largely to blame for this situation are technology transfer offices at universities, which often grant single companies the exclusive rights to use technologies derived from publicly funded research.