{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01812688821752266, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004531722054380665, 'mean_word_length': 5.050228310502283, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Battle brewing over the BRCA1/2 gene patents.

The revolutionary discovery of the DNA and the successful mapping of the human genome have allowed scientists worldwide to engage in an unprecedented research on the cutting-edge biomedical technology such as the genetic engineering (gene-splicing or recombinant DNA). However, as is often the case with modern bio-technologies, genes related innovation is heavily dependent on strong patent protection primarily due to high costs of research and commercialisation in this area. The aim of this paper is to provide a description of the District Court Ruling in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology et al v United States Patent and Trademark Office et al (ACLU v Myriad). In doing so, the article provides information on the relevant background at issues, including a brief introduction to general patentability requirements in relation to genes and the controversy surrounding the patentability of genetic material. The analysis of the complaint filed in the ACLU v Myriad case and the details of the District Court Ruling follows. The paper concludes with an outlook of the future legal actions involving Myriad's BRCA1/2 and the assessment of the potential impact that the BRCA1/2 District Court Ruling and subsequent appeal(s) may have on the American patent law.