Moore had leukemia. He was treated at a UC hospital. Moore consented to treatment, but the UC researchers took tissue samples for research
purposes.
Turns out, the tissue samples were tremendously valuable
for cancer research (possibly in the billions!).
UC obtained a patent on a cell line made from Moore's cells.
Moore sued UC for conversion (aka exercise of
ownership over the property of another). He also sued for a host of other
things such as fraud and infliction of emotional distress.
UC demurred.
The Trial Court found for UC and dismissed the case. Moore appealed.
The Appellate Court reversed. UC appealed.
The Appellate Court found that there was, "no legal
authority public policy, or known fact of biological science which compel
a conclusion that this plaintiff cannot have a sufficient legal interest
in his own bodily tissues amounting to personal property.
The Appellate Court found that Moore had properly pleaded
conversion, and it was up to a jury to decide if the tissue
samples were improperly converted or if they were abandoned property.
The California Supreme Court reversed and found for UC.
The California Supreme Court found that Moore did not
have a cause of action for conversion, but he did have a cause of
action for breach of his physician's disclosure obligations.
The California Supreme Court found that if researchers
had to investigate if every cell line they were using came from a willing
donor it would hurt socially important medical research.
Since conversion is a strict liability tort,
anyone using the cell line could be held liable, even if they didn't
know where the cells came from originally. That would discourage
researchers from doing medical research.
The California Supreme Court found that Moore's cells are
similar to a donated organ. California statutes don't consider personal
property interests for donated organs (for example, you can't sell them.)
On the other hand, in a dissent, it was argued that
while you can't sell organs for transplant, you can sell tissue samples
for education or research purposes.
In addition, Moore would probably not be able to show
that he retained a property interest in his cells after they were taken.
Most people who have blood drawn don't ask for the blood back!
The California Supreme Court found that Moore couldn't
possibly have a right to the UC patent. You cannot patent natural,
living materials, such as Moore's cells. What UC patented was a cell
line, which they had to tinker with to get to work. It was the tinkering
that resulted in the patent, not Moore's cells.
The California Supreme Court did find that the UC doctors
had a duty to disclose research and economic interests that could affect
their decision making process.
Moore had a right to consent to medical treatment, and
had a right to know if samples were being taken for his benefit or to
harvest cells for research purposes.
In a dissent, it was argued that this is not a good
compromise. It will be difficult for Moore to recover at all, and he
certainly won't get anywhere near the amount the UC will earn off the
patent.
A concurring opinion wondered if agreeing with Moore would create a marketplace for human body parts.
One would certainly have to agree that Moore had a
property interest in his cells while they were in his body. If so, how
did he lose the property interest when they were removed? And how did UC
acquire their property interest if they didn't get it from Moore?
If a thief had entered the UC lab and stolen Moore's cells, could UC have sued for conversion?
In a dissent, it was argued that, even if Moore could not sell his tissues, he still retained a property interest in them. For
example, if you have a hunting license, you are forbidden from selling the
dead animals, but you still 'own' them.
Property that cannot be legally sold but can be given
away is called market-inalienable.
