Myriad - Australia edition

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 - Australia edition

Australia’s High Court held oral arguments today on the issue of whether an isolated gene is patentable

The patent in dispute in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics is patent 686004 held by Myriad Genetics, the Australian version of the patent that was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

DK Catterns and PK Cashman appeared on behalf of D’Arcy and were instructed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman. D Shavin and C Dimitriadis appeared for Myriad and were instructed by Jones Day.

Back in September 2014, the Full Federal court found that the subject matter was patentable. Cancer Voices Australia challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the isolated molecules were not materially different from the ones found in nature and thus the patent does not meet the manner of manufacture requirement as articulated in the seminal NRDC v Commissioner of Patents case.

In upholding the patent, the Full Federal Court discussed in detail the reasoning of both the US Supreme Court, which struck down Myriad’s patent, and the US Federal Circuit, which had held the subject matter was patentable. The Full Federal Court said that the Federal Circuit’s reasoning was more persuasive and had a “more detailed analysis of the underlying chemistry”. It also said that the Federal Circuit’s focus on the structure and functioning of the isolated molecule was more appropriate and consistent with the approach required by Australian law. The Full Federal Court contrasted this with the Supreme Court’s approach, which was more focused on the information contained in the molecule.

Click here for Managing IP’s analysis of the Full Federal Court’s decision.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article