I'd like to read the full judgment in this case before I pontificate too much about it.
From what has been reported it is a stupid outcome and one that should be protested in any way possible. Courts should not be making their decisions based on what they regard as "immoral". They are there to apply legal norms, which may have their sources in statutes, in customs that have traditionally been recognised by the courts, or elsewhere, but not in contested moral claims.
In some cases, legal norms will resemble core moral norms, which is understandable as both serve similar functions. So it's not surprising that murder is condemned both morally and legally. But the courts should not be giving the force of law to one of the many moral positions that are open for people to take in modern pluralist societies, and statutes should not encourage them to engage in that sort of inquiry.
On the face of it, this looks like a bleak day for the progress of medicine, but also for liberalism and social pluralism.
(None of which is to get into issues about whether some sorts of things should be unpatentable on other grounds, such as being products of nature rather than human inventions. That's a separate argument.)