The Supreme Court has issued a “GVR” in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (the ACLU “gene patenting”/BRCAI case), granting certiorari only to vacate the Federal Circuit decision that upheld the patent-eligibility of Myriad’s “isolated DNA” claims, and remanding the case to the Federal Circuit for rehearing in view of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Prometheus. While Myriad’s isolated DNA claims raise a different question under 35 § USC 101 than Prometheus’ method claims, this action by the Supreme Court indicates that the Court thinks that the “product of nature” and “law of nature” questions are close enough that the Federal Circuit should revisit its decision in Myriad in view of the analysis the Supreme Court provided in Prometheus.
Stakeholders and practitioners in the fields of personalized medicine, biologics, and pharmaceuticals will be watching closely to see what happens next.
Will the divided panel of Federal Circuit judges who originally decided Myriad be swayed to reach a different conclusion?
Will the Federal Circuit take up the case en banc?
Will the court distinguish Prometheus or decide that the unanimous Supreme Court decision reaches beyond its facts to different patent-eligibilty issues?
Will the court dodge the whole § 101 issue and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because no plaintiff has standing?
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.