Five years later, what are the wider impacts of the US Supreme Court's Myriad decision on subject-matter eligibility and patent prosecution for nature-based products beyond isolated DNA?
References
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).
Schor, G.A., Norviel, V. & Cohen, I.G. Brief for amicus curiae Eric S. Lander in support of neither party http://hdl.handle.net/10161/7590 (2013).
Gold, R.E., Cook-Deegan, R. & Bubela, T. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 192ed9 (2013).
Dilenge, T. et al. Brief for amicus curiae The Biotechnology Industry Organization in support of respondents https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-398_resp_amcu_bio.authcheckdam.pdf (2013).
Rai, A.K. & Cook-Deegan, R. Science 341, 137–138 (2013).
Sachs, R. UC Davis Law Rev. 49, 1881–1940 (2015).
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980).
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 68 S. Ct. 440 (1948).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
USPTO. 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-08.2017] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html
In Re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333 (2014).
Rai, A.K. & Sherkow, J.S. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 292–294 (2016).
Sherkow, J.S. & Greely, H.T. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49, 161–182 (2015).
Burk, D.L. Notre Dame Law Rev. 90, 505–542 (2016).
Tallmadge, E.H. Harv. J. Law Technol. 30, 569–600 (2017).
Woessner, W.D. in Patents4Life http://www.patents4life.com/2015/04/isolated-natural-products-still-in-purgatory-post-pto-guidance/ (2015).
Luo, C. & Goldstein, J. in Bloomberg BNA – Life Sciences Law & Industry Report https://www.sternekessler.com/sites/default/files/2017-11/Patenting_Purified_Natural_Products.pdf (2015).
Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1119–1123 (2016).
Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K., Jordan, M. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 820–825 (2017).
D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 325 ALR 100 (2015).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Text
Supplementary Data and Methods (PDF 633 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K. et al. Was the Myriad decision a 'surgical strike' on isolated DNA patents, or does it have wider impacts?. Nat Biotechnol 36, 1146–1149 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4308
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4308
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
European patent protection for medical uses of known products and drug repurposing
Nature Biotechnology (2022)
-
Mapping the European patent landscape for medical uses of known products
Nature Biotechnology (2021)
-
Reply to C.D. Richter
European Journal of Human Genetics (2020)
-
One year after Vanda, are diagnostics patents transforming into methods of treatment to overcome Mayo-based rejections?
Nature Biotechnology (2020)
-
How does emerging patent case law in the US and Europe affect precision medicine?
Nature Biotechnology (2019)