Betting on Bilski: The Supreme Court and Biotechnology Patents

There is a two-part question that we are frequently asked these days: “When is Bilski going to be decided and what’s the decision going to be?”

The first part of that question is easy to answer. Bilski will be decided soon. Need something more specific? Bilski will be decided sometime between today and the end of June or beginning of July, when the Supreme Court’s current term ends.

The second part of the question involves predicting the future. We’re happy to take a shot at that, but only after a few caveats. First, these predictions are for entertainment purposes only. Betting on Supreme Court decisions is illegal in most states and several foreign countries, so don’t. Second, pay no attention to alleged inside information about what the Court is going to do or when it’s going to do it. There are no credible Supreme Court leaks—the Court is tighter than Putin’s old KGB (or his new FSB). Third, remember that it takes the votes of four justices for the Court to take a case. So we can presume that at least four justices wanted to say something about Bilski. But we don’t yet know what that might be. With those disclaimers, let’s proceed to the prognostication.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under Genomic Policymaking, Legal & Regulatory, Myriad Gene Patent Litigation, Patents & IP, Pending Litigation

WARF Reexamination Takes Another Bite Out of Biotech Patents

Two months ago, the Myriad gene patent litigation generated a slew of national and international coverage. We said, “Pigs Fly: Federal Court Invalidates Myriad’s Patent Claims.”  “Is the DNA patent dead?” asked CNN. Wired (apparently answering CNN) declared the “End of Gene Patents Will Help Patients, Force Companies to Change.” Everyone, it seemed, either had an opinion on what the Myriad decision meant for the future of biotechnology or was looking for somebody who did.

It’s not surprising that the Myriad litigation has dominated the headlines. The ACLU’s challenge to Myriad Genetics was a first-of-its-kind frontal attack on gene patents. But with Myriad now on appeal to the Federal Circuit, and a final resolution to that particular piece of litigation likely several years away, a variety of other legal developments are slowly but surely reshaping the biotechnology patent landscape. In the next few years, while frontal attacks such as Myriad are likely to occupy the press and policymakers, those interested in forecasting the future of biotechnology patents will be paying equally close attention to the various collateral attacks on gene, protein, association, diagnostic, and other biotechnology patents and claims.

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment »
Filed under Genomics & Society, Myriad Gene Patent Litigation, Patents & IP, Pending Litigation

The ACLU v. Myriad Genetics Suit: Legitimate Challenge or Publicity Stunt?

By now everyone has heard of the ACLU-instigated suit against Myriad’s patents on the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 (read: ACLU release; the complaint).  These patents emerged from research at the University of Utah and were assigned to Myriad, a private spinoff.  The broadest product claims cover “an isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 [or 2] polypeptide [protein], said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence” listed in the patent.  Related patents also challenged in the suit cover methods for screening for genetic mutations.  As a result of these patents, research and diagnostic testing involving BRCA1/2 must be done by or with the approval of Myriad, usually at some cost.

The ACLU has assembled a broad coalition of authoritative and sympathetic plaintiff.  They include medical and scientific organizations, individual researchers and physicians, the women’s health cooperative that publishes Our Bodies, Ourselves, and cancer patients who allege that they need but cannot afford (and cannot get their insurers to pay for) BRCA1/2 testing.  The defendants are Myriad, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and several directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation.

The suit comes against the background of some recent decisions that nibble around the edges of gene patentability. Earlier this year, in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTO’s obviousness rejection of a patent on polynucleotides that encode natural killer cell activation proteins (the NK cells help fight infections and cancer).  The holding was that it would have been obvious to try to isolate these nucleotide sequences in light of existing knowledge of the proteins in question and the sequencing methods.  Back in 1995, in In re Deuel, the Federal Circuit had had rejected this “obvious to try” objection to a generally comparable gene patent.  But now the same court took the view that the Deuel had been “discredited” by the Supreme Court’s 2007 obviousness decision, KSR International v. Teleflex.
Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under Badges, Genetic Testing/Screening, Myriad Gene Patent Litigation, Patents & IP, Pending Litigation