Health, Ownership of the Body, and Corporate Power: Lessons from DNA and mRNA Patent Battles

HealthThe patentability of genetic material has always been framed against the backdrop of public health. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics decision (2013) drew a sharp line: naturally occurring genomic DNA is not patentable, while complementary DNA (cDNA), produced in the lab, may qualify. The Court emphasized that identifying and isolating a gene is not an invention—it is a discovery of what already exists in nature. This reasoning still resonates in today’s debates, particularly as mRNA vaccines highlight the tension between innovation incentives and global health equity.

Ownership of the BodyAt the core of the Myriad case was the question of whether corporations could assert exclusive rights over sequences that exist in every human body. The Court’s rejection of isolated DNA patents reflected a broader discomfort with the commodification of the human genome. Yet the approval of cDNA patents left open questions: how far can human biological information be “repackaged” before it becomes a private asset? This debate continues with CRISPR and next-generation sequencing, where the boundaries between discovery and invention are increasingly blurred.

Corporate PowerThe Myriad litigation illustrated how corporate power collides with individual rights and public research. For years, Myriad restricted access to BRCA1/2 testing, limiting patients’ choices and researchers’ freedom. The company’s legal defeat enabled broader clinical testing, spurring competition and lowering costs. Yet similar dynamics are re-emerging in the ongoing mRNA patent battles. Companies such as Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, and GSK are asserting overlapping claims, each seeking royalties over vaccine platforms. While corporate litigation strategies dominate headlines, the ethical stakes remain the same: who controls life-saving knowledge, and under what conditions?

Conclusion The trajectory from Myriad to mRNA patent wars shows that legal doctrines are only one part of the equation. Courts may reject natural DNA patents, but companies adapt, shifting their claims to synthetic sequences, algorithms, and platforms. For policymakers, academics, and industry leaders, the challenge is to design frameworks that balance innovation with access, protect human dignity, and prevent monopolistic control over essential biomedical knowledge.