That some gene is patented does in itself means nothing. At some point in the nineties the patent offices around the world started accepting patents for discovered gene sequences (i.e. sequences read out of some organism). This meant that patents rights could be granted for any drug targeting the protein the gene codes for, and not just a specific drug that does it. It does not mean that this is an invented DNA sequence. In fact it seems like one that is naturally occurring in humans. The fact that the sequence is patented is irrelevant, and should be ignored. It does not seem like the article make much fuzz about it either.