 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
AMP v. Myriad: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*AMP sought to invalidate the Myriad gene patents | *AMP sought to invalidate the Myriad gene patents | ||
*Myriad lost in the district court in New York. | *Myriad lost in the district court in New York. | ||
*Myriad won the [https://cafc.uscourts.gov/ appeal in the federal circuit court] | *Myriad won the [https://cafc.uscourts.gov/ appeal in the federal circuit court] | ||
* | * | ||
|issues=Are products of nature patentable? | |||
|arguments=* AMP argued that genes and the associated cDNA were products of nature; thus, Myriad shouldn't have been allowed to patent those genes. | |arguments=* AMP argued that genes and the associated cDNA were products of nature; thus, Myriad shouldn't have been allowed to patent those genes. | ||
|holding=No; [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/patent patent] protection isn't available for products of nature. | |||
Myriad's gene patents are invalid. However, the cancer cDNA patents were different. The cDNA patents only included the coding portions of DNA while it excluded the non-coding portions of DNA. Therefore, the cDNA patents are valid. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed in part with respect to cDNA while reversed in part with respect to gene segments | |||
|rule=[[Clarence Thomas]] : Inventions derived from products of nature can qualify for patent protection. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/association-for-molecular-pathology-v-myriad-genetics-inc | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/association-for-molecular-pathology-v-myriad-genetics-inc | ||
Revision as of 22:36, February 29, 2024
| AMP v. Myriad | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 569 U.S. 576, 133 S.Ct. 2107 |
| Date decided | June 13, 2013 |
Facts
- For decades the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted gene patents or isolated DNA sequences.
- The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) = "AMP" = plaintiff
- Myriad Genetics, Inc. = "Myriad" = a company that discovered the location & DNA sequences of 2 breast cancer genes = defendant
- Myriad obtained numerous patents based on its discovered breast cancer genes
Procedural History
- AMP & others sued Myriad.
- AMP sought to invalidate the Myriad gene patents
- Myriad lost in the district court in New York.
- Myriad won the appeal in the federal circuit court
Issues
Are products of nature patentable?
Arguments
- AMP argued that genes and the associated cDNA were products of nature; thus, Myriad shouldn't have been allowed to patent those genes.
Holding
No; patent protection isn't available for products of nature.
Myriad's gene patents are invalid. However, the cancer cDNA patents were different. The cDNA patents only included the coding portions of DNA while it excluded the non-coding portions of DNA. Therefore, the cDNA patents are valid.Judgment
Affirmed in part with respect to cDNA while reversed in part with respect to gene segments
Rule
Clarence Thomas : Inventions derived from products of nature can qualify for patent protection.
Resources
