- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Last fall Myriad Genetics, Inc. had something celebrate, but it cannot breathe a sigh of relief just yet. On Monday, March 26, the Supreme Court set aside a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that allowed Myriad to patent two genes that have been linked to breast and ovarian cancers: BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad filed to patent the genes, which account for a large portion of inherited breast cancer, over 16 years ago, but the issues presented are unique and have far reaching implications for the medical diagnostics industry.
The case was set aside for further consideration in light of the Supreme Courts decision in Prometheus, rendered on March 20, 2012. Prometheus Labs of San Diego, CA owned diagnostic patents which covered the process of administering thiopurine drugs to see whether patients received the appropriate dose. The Supreme Court held that the patent claims merely identified a law of nature (not patentable) and that the process was not transformative, a prerequisite to patenting technology. The decision sent ripples throughout the biotechnology industry, which seems concerned about the consequences of the decision on the development of personalized medicine.
The Court ordered the Court of Appeals to review the Myriad decision in light of its decision in Prometheus. Some have distinguished Myriad Genetic’s composition claims and believe the Court of Appeals will reaffirm the Myriad case, but the industry will likely have to wait until late 2012 or early 2013 to get the new decision. Others think the differences are minimal but wonder whether the Court of Appeals will interpret Prometheus broadly enough to reverse its previous decision. If the Court of Appeals refuses to change its opinion in the case, it is possible the Supreme Court would reverse the decision anyway because two of the organizations cited in Prometheus (American College of Medical Genetics and the Association for Molecular Pathology) are plaintiffs in Myriad and are arguing that the patents inhibit patient care by limiting the use of scientific data. While the Supreme Court offered little guidance about when patent claims go too far, it appears to be warming to the argument that overly broad claims can interfere further medical research, which leaves many questions for industry. What do you think? Will the new decisions help or hinder medical research?
–Samara C. Pals Cramer
Recent Blog Posts
- The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Jumps Thirty-One Spots to Highest Ranking Ever
- Hiding Behind the Computer Screen: James Woods Files Defamation Lawsuit Against a Twitter User
- Let’s Enjoy Fantasy Football…While We Can
- Guest Post: Tweeting Away Patient Privacy
- Naturally Occurring or Mind-made?
- Does China’s 2022 Winter Olympics Song Intentionally Plagiarized ‘Frozen’s’ ‘Let It Go’?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution