Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Myriad - Australia edition

Australia’s High Court held oral arguments today on the issue of whether an isolated gene is patentable

The patent in dispute in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics is patent 686004 held by Myriad Genetics, the Australian version of the patent that was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

DK Catterns and PK Cashman appeared on behalf of D’Arcy and were instructed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman. D Shavin and C Dimitriadis appeared for Myriad and were instructed by Jones Day.

Back in September 2014, the Full Federal court found that the subject matter was patentable. Cancer Voices Australia challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the isolated molecules were not materially different from the ones found in nature and thus the patent does not meet the manner of manufacture requirement as articulated in the seminal NRDC v Commissioner of Patents case.

In upholding the patent, the Full Federal Court discussed in detail the reasoning of both the US Supreme Court, which struck down Myriad’s patent, and the US Federal Circuit, which had held the subject matter was patentable. The Full Federal Court said that the Federal Circuit’s reasoning was more persuasive and had a “more detailed analysis of the underlying chemistry”. It also said that the Federal Circuit’s focus on the structure and functioning of the isolated molecule was more appropriate and consistent with the approach required by Australian law. The Full Federal Court contrasted this with the Supreme Court’s approach, which was more focused on the information contained in the molecule.

Click here for Managing IP’s analysis of the Full Federal Court’s decision.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players
Members from both sides of the US House of Representatives wrote to USPTO director Kathi Vidal on Friday, March 24, expressing their concern about “patent thicketing.”
Charles Hoskin of Singaporean e-commerce platform Shopee, who made the jump from a luxury brand, says honest conversations and collaborations are key to combatting counterfeiting
Adam Williams speaks to Managing IP about the legacy of Brexit and why IP has sometimes got ‘lost in the noise’ at Westminster
Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23