Myriad - Australia edition

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article