This appears to be a highly polarizing topic, with (A) proponents saying some patents are necessary to support investment and commercialization (without instant copycats), while (B) others say gene patenting is fundamentally wrong and also inhibits innovation.
See a 2019 blog on investments and patents in diagnostics here and the underlying original article here (which is 94pp; Taylor; Cardozo law review journal).
The Hill is considering draft legislation and will hold hearings in early June. The legal changes wouldn't be specific to genetics, but would have a significant impact on genomics patent law. The draft bill just adds a few sentences to existing patent law, but they impact on a large number of stacked and intersecting court cases and case law.
I'll provide some entry points to this complex area. Senate hearings are June 4, June 5, June 11 in the intellectual property subcommittee of the judiciary committee.
- Genomeweb overview on June 4; I believe open access, here.
- At Patent Docs, the frequently quoted patent attorney Kevin Noonan is pro-change, he has two recent open blogs with many hyperlinks,
- Washington Post, June 3, (suspicious of reform; probably firewall), here.
- Science, June 4, here.
- ACLU, June 3, here.
