Myriad sues competitors for infringing genes patents

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Myriad sues competitors for infringing genes patents

Myriad is suing two competitors for allegedly infringing its patents on genes that can help to detect cancer, despite a ruling by the Supreme Court that human genes are ineligible for patent protection

myriad.jpg

In Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics last month, the court ruled that isolated and purified DNA was a product of nature, which is exempt from patent protection under Section 101. The justices ruled that complementary DNA (cDNA) can be patented, however, because it requires significant human skill to create.

The genes could be used to screen for breast and ovarian cancer, but because Myriad owns the patents on them, other companies were unable to offer the tests. Utah-based Myriad charged around $3,000 for providing testing for the two genes.

Since the ruling, companies and universities have announced they will provide the tests. Last week, Myriad sued two of these companies, Ambry Genetics and Gene by Gene, claiming their tests infringed other patents owned by Myriad that were not invalidated by the court.

In a statement, Ambry CEO Charles Dunlop said the company will “vigorously defend” the complaint and the motion for preliminary injunction. He said the company has had “an overwhelming response from our clients seeking an alternative laboratory to perform BRCA testing”.

Myriad has filed a separate complaint against Gene by Gene.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
Gift this article