Myriad Patents

Myriad Genetics is a publicly-traded molecular diagnostic company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Myriad's business model centers around isolating particular genes and determining their role in the... more +
Myriad Genetics is a publicly-traded molecular diagnostic company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Myriad's business model centers around isolating particular genes and determining their role in the development and progression of disease. Myriad's patenting practices have elicited considerable controversy with many opponents charging that Myriad cannot rightfully patent human genes. Opponents argue that human genes are naturally occurring and not patent-eligible subject matter. Myriad counters that the practice of isolating genes is a process distinct from the genes themselves and thus, is patentable. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering the validity of Myriad's patents in AMP v. Myriad Genetics.    less -
News & Analysis as of

What impact will the Australian Myriad decision have on patent eligibility of diagnostic tests?

By now most will know that: (a) Australia’s final appeal Court has made adverse findings against Myriad’s patent for utilising the BRCA1 locus to diagnose breast cancer; (b) the rejected claims are only those that...more

Australian Patent Office Proposes “Coding Only” Sequence Ban

Coming soon after the High Court’s “Myriad decision” in Australia, the Australian Patent Office has proposed guidelines that would effectively limit the ban on patent-eligibility of DNA sequences to nucleic acids that code...more

Can a natural product still be patented in Australia?

Yes. While various commentaries have suggested that patentable subject matter will be restricted in Australia under the recent High Court Myriad decision to exclude naturally occurring products (whether or not isolated), my...more

Can we patent products found in nature? It's complicated. An update on Australia's Myriad decision...

It remains to be seen if this new Myriad decision in Australia will be extended as it was in the U.S. to prevent virtually any product found in nature from being patented....more

What did the Australian High Court actually say about the patent eligibility of cDNA?

As the dust from the impact of the Australian Myriad decision begins to settle, now is the time to revisit what many have said regarding patent eligibility of cDNA, against what the final appeal Court actually said. On...more

“Does a nucleic acid constitute patent eligible subject matter under Australia law?”

That is the question that we hoped Australia’s final appeal Court to have answered in the Myriad decision that it handed down last week. Some observers have been quite forthright on the point: ‘Yes, the High Court of...more

Does a Nucleic Acid Constitute Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under Australian Law?

Clearly the High Court has given an answer to a question, but was that question the one we anticipated? That in itself is an open question!...more

Australian High Court Rules Gene Patents Unpatentable

Like the United States Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia has determined that Myriad’s patents directed to purified and isolated DNA molecules encoding the BRCA genes are unpatentable. Indeed, the Australian Court...more

USPTO Report on State of Confirmatory Genetic Testing Comes off the Waffle Iron

In 2011—after the Fed. Cir. decision in Myriad upholding claims to BRACA1 and 2 genes—the PTO was tasked by a section of the AIA with providing Congress with a report on the effect of patenting on confirmatory genetic...more

Life Sciences Alert: High Court of Australia unanimously decides that isolated genetic material is not patentable in Australia

In D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 (D'Arcy v Myriad) the High Court of Australia has unanimously held (by way of three separate judgments: majority decision (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, and Keane JJ) and two...more

News from Abroad: Australian High Court Has Ruled in Myriad Gene Patent Case

The Australian High Court yesterday unanimously overturned six lower court judges and dismissed some very careful reasoning to not only follow the U.S. Supreme Court in invalidating claims to the BRCA1 and 2 gene sequences,...more

News from Abroad: High Court Rules Myriad's BRCA Genes Not Patentable Subject Matter in Australia

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

Physiology/Medicine Nobels Awarded for Discoveries of “Natural Products”

In re Roslin Institute, a Fed. Cir. panel consisting of Judges Dyk, Moore and Wallach ruled that methods of isolating cffDNA were not patent eligible. Judge Dyk, writing for the panel endorsed the “markedly different”...more

Australia High Court Rules Against Gene Patents

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

News from Abroad: Isolated Nucleic Acids Not Patentable in Australia

D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor [2015] HCA 35 - The High Court of Australia today handed down its decision in D'Arcy v Myriad, deciding once and for all that isolated nucleic acids do not define patent-eligible...more

News from Abroad: Isolated Gene Sequences Suffer A Cruel Fate in the Hands of the High Court of Australia

D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 - The High Court of Australia has today handed down its decision in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35, unanimously striking down the validity of the first three claims...more

High Court of Australia determines isolated BRCA1 gene not patentable in Australia

The High Court of Australia has unanimously overturned previous decisions from lower courts and has held that certain claims to Myriad's patent for isolated BRCA1 nucleic acid molecules are not patentable in Australia...more

Strong Support for Sequenom’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc

In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), a Federal Circuit panel held that Sequenom Inc.’s prenatal diagnosis patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under the two-step test of Mayo...more

Protecting Diagnostic Innovation – Two Actor Infringement Liability

In Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., (August 13, 2015 Fed. Cir.) an en banc Federal Circuit unanimously held that direct infringement under Section 271(a) can occur...more

Sequenom Seeks Rehearing En Banc

Sequenom, Inc. has filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit decision that held its diagnostic method claims invalid under 35 USC § 101. (You can read my synopsis of that decision here). Stakeholders in...more

Further Guidance from the PTO

And yet diagnostic methods are still wandering in the wilderness… The PTO has issued yet another revision of its Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance for Examiners. The ?rst of these Guidance documents arrived in March...more

Federal Circuit’s Latest Patent Subject Matter Decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom Renders Many Biotech Patents at Risk

On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., finding that Sequenom’s patent claiming methods of using cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) for prenatal diagnosis test is...more

The Life Sciences Report - Spring 2015

In This Issue: - The Rise of Companion Diagnostics in Personalized Medicine: Challenges and Opportunities - Department of Justice Imposes More Than $110 Million in Fines on Medical Device Makers - Life...more

News from Abroad: High Court of Australia Hears Myriad Appeal

The High Court of Australia today heard the long anticipated appeal from the unanimous decision of a 5-judge bench of the Full Federal Court to allow Myriad's claims to isolated nucleic acids. The question before the...more

Federal Circuit Holds Sequenom Diagnostic Method Patent Invalid Under 101

On Friday, June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., affirming the district court's finding that Sequenom’s claims are invalid under 35 USC § 101. The court's...more

215 Results
View per page
Page: of 9

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.