US politician calls for mandatory licensing on Myriad’s cancer tests

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 politician calls for mandatory licensing on Myriad’s cancer tests

A senior politician has called for the US government to force genetics company Myriad to license its patents to ensure greater public access to testing for breast and ovarian cancer

Senator Patrick Leahy sent a letter on Friday to Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, urging him to use “march-in rights” under the Bayh-Dole Act on Myriad’s patents covering the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which can be used to screen for certain types of cancer.

The move comes after the Supreme Court’s mixed ruling in June in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics. The Court ruled that isolated and purified DNA is a naturally occurring phenomenon and therefore ineligible for patent protection, but synthetically created complementary DNA (cDNA) is eligible for patent protection.

In his letter, Leahy argued that Myriad’s patents were partially based on research funded by the US government. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, other companies were unable to offer the tests because of Myriad’s patent. Myriad charges between $3,000 and $4,000 for the tests.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision, several competitors have begun to offer the tests. Myriad has sued two of these rivals, Ambry Genetics and Gene by Gene, arguing that they infringe other Myriad patents not invalidated by the Court.

The Bayh-Dole Act allows private companies to claim the rights to inventions created with federal funds, generally without reimbursing the government, but grants the government “march-in rights” to require the patent holder to grant a licence on reasonable terms. If the patent holder refuses, the government can directly license the patent in certain circumstances.

“The health benefits of genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer are clear,” wrote Leahy. “The healthcare cost savings are also clear.

“I am concerned, however, that the health needs of the public are not reasonably satisfied by the patentee in this situation because the testimony presented to the USPTO made clear that many women are not able to afford the testing provided by Myriad.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Gift this article