The Genomics Law Report has provided ample coverage throughout the litigation over Myriad Genetics’ BRCA1/2 patents. The saga had a rather lengthy procedural history, so a timeline of key landmarks with hyperlinks to GLR coverage as appropriate (in the “where” column) may be useful.
|1997||USPTO||US Patent 5693473 issued to Myriad Genetics Inc.|
|March 2010||SDNY||US Patent 5693473 invalidated||AMP v. USPTO, 702 F.Supp.2d 181|
|July 2011||Fed Cir NY||SDNY decision affirmed in part, reversed in part||AMP v. USPTO, 653 F.3d 1329.|
|March 2012||SCOTUS||Certiorari granted, Fed Cir NY judgment vacated, case remanded to Fed Cir NY||AMP v. Myriad, 132 S.Ct. 1794|
|August 2012||FedCir NY||Subsequent determination made (in light of Mayo v. Prometheus)||AMP v. USPTO, 689 F.3d 1303|
|November 2012||SCOTUS||Certiorari granted||AMP v. Myriad, 133 S.Ct. 694|
|April 2013||SCOTUS||Heard oral arguments|
|June 2013||SCOTUS||Fed Cir decision affirmed in part, reversed in part||AMP v. Myriad, 569 US —|
After what seemed like an eternity, the epic saga known as AMP v. Myriad Genetics has finally come to a close. On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled (1) that isolated genomic DNA (gDNA) is not patent-eligible under section 101 of the Patent Act, but (2) cDNA is. For once, what the Justices said at oral argument gave accurate clues to what they really thought, and the result was what almost every observer (including this one) had predicted.
Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.
Oral arguments in Maryland v. King were held on February 26, 2013, as reported previously here on GLR. Following oral arguments, I stated, “If forced to predict, I would anticipate a split decision that uses a broad definition of ‘identification’ and upholds this ‘fingerprint for the 21st Century;’ however, I haven’t the foggiest as to whether a biometric identification exception will be created or whether a balancing test will be applied to reach that decision.”
Read the rest of this entry »