Second win for Myriad as Federal Circuit stands firm on gene patent ruling

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Second win for Myriad as Federal Circuit stands firm on gene patent ruling

solated-dna-molecule-on-white-background-45.jpg

Biotech company Myriad, which owns US patents covering the isolation and detection of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, has won a second victory at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In the long-running dispute, a number of parties including the Association for Molecular Pathology argued that Myriad’s claims covered matter that was not eligible for patent protection.

In today’s majority opinion, Judge Alan Lourie affirmed that the district court had declaratory judgment jurisdiction as at least one plaintiff (Harry Ostrer) had standing to challenge the validity of the patents.

The Federal Circuit also again reversed the district court’s finding that Myriad’s composition claims to isolated DNA molecules cover patent-ineligible products of nature saying “each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter”

In addition, the court reversed the finding that Myriad’s method claim to screening potential cancer therapeutics via changes in cell growth rates of transformed cells is directed to a patent-ineligible scientific principle.

But it affirmed the district court’s decision that Myriad’s method claims directed to “comparing” or “analyzing” DNA sequences are patent ineligible, saying “such claims include no transformative steps and cover only patent-ineligible abstract, mental steps”.

Judge Kimberly Moore, who reportedly asked probing questions in the oral hearing, wrote a concurring opinion.

But Judge William Bryson wrote an opinion in which he dissented from the court’s holding that Myriad’s BRCA gene claims and its claims to gene fragments are patent-eligible.

“In my view, those claims are not directed to patentable subject matter, and the court’s decision, if sustained, will likely have broad consequences, such as preempting methods for whole-genome sequencing, even though Myriad’s contribution to the field is not remotely consonant with such effects,” wrote Bryson.

The Federal Circuit first ruled in the Myriad case in July last year, after which an appeal to the Supreme Court was filed. The case was remanded back to the Federal Circuit following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo v Prometheus in March this year.

The list of attorneys acting for the parties and amicus curiae extends to five pages of the opinion. One of them was Dan Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation, who was profiled as one of the 50 most influential people in IP last month.

Managing IP also has a page devoted to the Myriad case.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article