By Adam Liptak | The New York Times
In a lively Supreme Court argument on Monday, the justices struggled to find a narrow way to rule on the momentous question of whether human genes may be patented.
“Why should we jump in and decide the broadest possible question?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
To simplify the complex scientific and legal questions before them, the justices kicked around analogies — to chocolate-chip cookies, baseball bats and plants in the Amazon with medicinal qualities. But none of them proved wholly satisfactory, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer said there was a lesson in that.
“The patent law is filled with uneasy compromises,” he said. Some justices expressed concern about making sure that businesses continue to engage in expensive research. Others worried that allowing genes to be patented would shut down innovation.
“Why would a company incur massive investment if it cannot patent?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that an isolated gene was “just nature sitting there.”
If you’d like to discuss intellectual property issues, contact Robert Iussa, chairman RLG Intellectual Property Dept., riussa@roselawgroup.com
