Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim 'markedly different' from nature?

  • Patents
  • Published:

From Nature Biotechnology

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Examining the types of claim amendments that have transformed isolated gene claims from patent-ineligible into eligible subject matter provides clarity into the threshold of eligibility for gene-related patents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1: Methodological overview, including automated search, manual classification and expert prosecution history review steps.

References

  1. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).

  2. Burk, D.L. J. Law Biosci. 2, 606–626 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. USPTO. 2014 interim guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. Fed. Regist. 79, 74618–74633 (2014).

  4. USPTO. July 2015 update: subject matter eligibility (USPTO, Alexandria, Virginia) https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf (2015).

  5. Bahr, R. W. Formulating a subject matter eligibility rejection and evaluating the applicant's response to a subject matter eligibility rejection (USPTO, Alexandria, Virginia) https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016-memo.pdf (2016).

  6. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  7. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)

  8. USPTO. Subject matter eligibility (USPTO, Alexandria, Virginia) https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility (31 July 2017).

  9. Sherkow, J.S. & Greely, H.T. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49, 161–182 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Guerrini, C.J., Majumder, M.A. & McGuire, A.L. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 145–147 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Feldman, R. Stanford Law Policy Rev. 26, 16–22 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ledford, H. Nature 498, 281–282 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Holbrook, T.R. & Janis, M.D. UC Irvine L. Rev. 5, 973 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1119–1123 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Graff, G.D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 404–410 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, The Senate, Canberra, Australia. Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010 (September 2011).

  17. Burk, D.L. Notre Dame Law Rev. 90, 505–542 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rai, A.K. & Sherkow, J.S. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 292–294 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. American Intellectual Property Law Association. AIPLA Legislative Proposal and Report on Patent Eligible Subject Matter (2017).

  20. Lundberg, S. Vol. 2016 Natl. Law Rev. (2016) https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dave-kappos-calls-abolition-section-101.

  21. Thambisetty, S. Intellectual Property Quarterly (in the press).

  22. Christie, A.F.D. et al. John Marshall Rev. Intellect. Prop. Law 16, 21–43 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Huys, I., Matthijs, G. & Van Overwalle, G. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 441–448 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. USPTO. Nature-based products (USPTO, Alexandria, Virginia) https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mdc_examples_nature-based_products.pdf (16 December 2014).

  25. D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 355 ALR 100 (2015).

  26. Jefferson, O.A., Köllhofer, D., Ehrich, T.H. & Jefferson, R.A. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1086–1093 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bubela, T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 202–206 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mateo Aboy, Johnathon Liddicoat, Kathleen Liddell, Matthew Jordan and Cristina Crespo are at the Centre for Law, Medicine, and Life Sciences (LML), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,

    Mateo Aboy, Johnathon Liddicoat, Kathleen Liddell, Matthew Jordan & Cristina Crespo

Authors
  1. Mateo Aboy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johnathon Liddicoat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen Liddell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cristina Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mateo Aboy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K. et al. After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim 'markedly different' from nature?. Nat Biotechnol 35, 820–825 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3953

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3953

  • Springer Nature America, Inc.

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation