PROFESSIONSupreme Court to rule: When are medical patents too broad?The high court's answer could affect medical research.By Amy Lynn Sorrel, amednews staff. April 10, 2006. The U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in 25 years will examine patent law boundaries in a case that opposing sides -- the medical community and patent lawyers -- say could threaten medical research and testing if the case doesn't go their way. Specifically, the Supreme Court asked during oral arguments March 21 whether Metabolite Laboratories Inc.'s patent for testing vitamin B deficiency is so overly broad that it covers a basic scientific relationship and goes against precedent that "laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas" are not patentable. The implications of how the court rules on that question could be wide-reaching, influencing patents on everything from biomedicine to business methods. At minimum, the ruling is expected to affect how medicine is practiced. The case galvanized many organizations' interest in the form of friend-of-the-court briefs, including a brief from the American Medical Association/State Medical Societies Litigation Center and five national medical organizations. Organized medicine's brief contends that the patent is too broad, making it possible for a doctor to infringe on a patent in the course of routine care. If the high court upholds a patent of scientific fact, it would stifle technical innovation in medicine and "prevent physicians from exercising their best medical judgment in treating their patients," said AMA Trustee William A. Hazel Jr., MD. "Physicians should be allowed to focus on helping patients without worrying that providing quality health care could infringe on a manufacturer's patent," he said. [...]Full text of American Medical News content is available to AMA members and paid subscribers.
Copyright 2006 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
|