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

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

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article