US Supreme Court to clarify patent eligibility of genes

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

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

McDermott Will & Schulte lawyers explore why the UPC is seeing rapid adoption by medtech for fast-moving disputes, while pharma and biotech take a cautious, selective approach over revocation risks
IP firms may be growing more comfortable with external capital, but uncertainty over who could ultimately own the business is complicating the investment pitch
The former Western District of Texas judge addresses perceptions of his courtroom, reveals what comes next as he returns to practice at A&O Shearman and explains why marathon running is ‘cathartic’
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition says it has been blocked from hosting its annual event in the city, ending a long tradition of holding the gathering in the days leading up to INTA’s flagship event
The ITC is a powerful tool for litigators, practitioners say, as the threat of an exclusion order on a critical tech component could mean disrupting the entire data centre's operations
Anna Toh plans to expand Rajah & Tann’s soft IP capabilities, leveraging its Southeast Asia network to support clients on cross-border portfolio management and commercial strategy
The Canadian boutique’s new IP lead says he wants to build a tech-enabled IP practice aimed at giving startups senior expertise away from the traditional ‘big law’ set-up
Qantm IP’s acquisition of Henry Goh & Co shows shifting attitudes towards private equity, with firms increasingly viewing external backing as a normal route to expansion rather than a source of concern
The firm’s involvement in prominent AI cases drew litigator Christian Mammen to join from Womble Bond Dickinson, as US firms continue to bolster AI-focused practices
Two judicial appointments confirmed in Paris and Mannheim, while cross-border injunctions and high-profile procedural rulings keep major patent practices occupied
Gift this article