Looking Back at Myriad: A User’s Guide

MyriadThe 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.

When Where Action Citation
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 —


Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under Badges, Genomics & Medicine, Legal & Regulatory, Myriad Gene Patent Litigation, Patent Litigation

Myriad, Finally: Supreme Court Surprises by not Surprising

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.


Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under Direct-to-Consumer Services, Genetic Testing/Screening, Genomics & Medicine, Genomics & Society, Myriad Gene Patent Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patents & IP

DNA Fingerprinting as Routine Arrest Booking Procedure Upheld as Anticipated

1037193_dna_fingerprint_5

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 »

Filed under Genomics & Society, Privacy