US Supreme Court to clarify patent eligibility of genes
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Supreme Court to clarify patent eligibility of genes

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed on Friday to hear the Myriad case, which could provide much-needed clarification on the patent eligibility of genes

The lawsuit, The Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, concerns biotech company Myriad's patent claims relating to isolated DNA of the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes, which can help doctors evaluate a patient's risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Myriad's claims also cover all possible mutations of the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes and the test for the mutations. At present, scientists cannot perform this test without permission from Myriad.

The Supreme Court will reconsider a previous finding by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which concluded that Myriad's composition of matter claims on the genes can be patented under Section 101.

The Federal Circuit initially decided the case in July 2011, overturning a previous district court ruling which found that Myriad's claims relating to isolated DNA molecules concern patent-ineligible products of nature. It also reversed the district court's conclusion that Myriad's method claim for analysing changes in the growth rates of transformed cells to test for possible cancer therapeutics is a scientific principle, and thus cannot be patented.

However, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that Myriad's method claims for comparing DNA sequences are patent-ineligible "abstract, mental steps".

The plaintiffs later appealed to the Supreme Court, but the case was returned to the Federal Circuit in March this year following the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo v Prometheus.

Despite the Mayo v Prometheus decision, the Federal Circuit once again ruled in favour of Myriad in August. In September, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a petition asking the Supreme Court, for the second time, to reconsider the case. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the matter by the end of 2013.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article