Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 204: Accelerating Life Sciences Startups with James Chappell of SCbio
Episode 185: America’s Bioeconomy with Sarah Glaven, White House Research Biologist
Episode 183: Site Development for Life Sciences Companies with Adam Bruns of Site Selection Magazine
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 181: South Carolina’s Life Sciences Economy with Ashely Teasdel, Deputy Secretary of SC Department of Commerce
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 180: SCBIO and the Life Sciences Industry in South Carolina with James Chappell, SCBIO CEO
From Academia to the Marketplace: The Ins and Outs of University Spinout Licenses with Dan O’Korn
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 171: Laura Gunter, President of the NC Life Sciences Organization
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 169: Shirley Paddock, Senior VP of Clinical Development, Syneos Health
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 168: Christine Harhaj, Senior Director of Advocacy & Strategic Alliances, PhRMA
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 167: Dr. Ehsan Samei & Dr. Susan Halabi, Triangle CERSI
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 166 — Christine Vannais, COO of Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 165: Doug Edgeton, President and CEO of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 164: Emily Chee, US General Manager of Novartis Gene Therapies
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 163: David Ellison, Chief Data Scientist for Lenovo’s Infrastructure Solutions Group
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 154: Andy Schwartzkopf, General Counsel and Chief Administration Officer, Signature Medical Group
Business Better Podcast Episode: Accelerating Life Sciences: How Accelerators and Education Are Joining Forces to Catapult the Life Sciences Industry
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech Episode 2
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech
Podcast: Entrepreneurship in Biotech: Growing Your Business - Diagnosing Health Care
Wiley Biotech Briefings – An Advanced Course for the Regulatory Professional: TSCA and Industrial Biotechnology
Despite an understandable amount of gloom and doom in patenting circles regarding the effects of the recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence on life sciences patents (Mayo v. Prometheus; AMP v. Myriad Genetics;...more
Arguing that the current state of the law weakens the patent system and poses a danger to life science innovators, biotechnology company, Sequenom, Inc., has filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the...more
Biotechnology. For many, the mere mention of the word stirs up a thought of people in white lab coats working in underground bunkers trying to create superhuman mutant weapons, with beakers of green goo bubbling in the...more
Judge Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss after finding three Cleveland Clinic Foundation diagnostic patents invalid under 35 USC § 101. While the...more
Last week, Appellee Natera, Inc. filed its response to the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellants Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC in August (see "Sequenom Requests Rehearing En...more
Just over one year after the Full Federal Court of Australia unanimously upheld an earlier Federal Court decision that naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules are patentable in Australia, the High Court of Australia has...more
Colleagues in Australia have been spreading the bad news: The High Court of Australia followed the lead (?) of the U.S. Supreme Court and determined that Myriad cannot patent the isolated BRCA1 gene in Australia. Thanks to...more
Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more
On December 17, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that certain claims relating to Myriad’s BRCA1 genetic test for breast and ovarian cancer were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being ineligible for patent...more
On March 4, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a guidance memorandum, entitled "Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural...more
Sounding an appropriately alarmist note, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) Life Sciences Law and Industry Report issues the results of a study on how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is administering its March 4, 2014...more
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that genes or other naturally-occurring pieces of DNA are patent ineligible subject matter in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. No....more
As we all know by now, the Supreme Court last month decided that isolated genes are not eligible for patenting. Although seemingly drawing a clear-cut distinction between DNA molecules having the same sequence as that which...more
The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that isolated DNA having the same sequence as naturally-occurring DNA is not patentable subject matter is inconsistent with the position of the European Patent Office and Japanese law....more
Today the U.S. Supreme Court answered the question "Are human genes patentable?" The Court, in Association of Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. et al., ruled that isolated DNA is a product of nature and not...more
A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring....more
On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patenting case (formally, Association For Molecular Pathology. et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., Supreme Court No....more
In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court issued its opinion this morning in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. In an opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices...more
Summary - On June 13, 2013 in a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. __ (2013) unanimously held that claims for isolated DNA sequences...more
Yesterday, a unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ass’n for Mol. Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., held that Myriad’s claims directed to “a naturally occurring segment of … [DNA]” are not patent eligible despite their...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its anxiously awaited decision in Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398 (U.S. June 13, 2013). The Court addressed whether an isolated...more
April 15 is a big day for biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical diagnostic companies at the Supreme Court, as justices begin a new session by hearing oral arguments in a landmark case involving the patentability of...more