The hearing on Myriad’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Ambry Genetics is scheduled for September 11, 2013, before Judge Robert A. Shelby at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah. The primary question before the court is whether it should issue a preliminary injunction to stop Ambry from selling its allegedly infringing genetic screening tests while the patent infringement case proceeds.
As discussed in this article, the judge will have to decide whether Myriad has shown that it is likely to prevail on the merits on the issues of validity and infringement, whether Myriad will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted, whether the balance of hardships tips in Myriad’s favor, and whether a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest. Ambry has taken the position that the newly asserted Myriad claims are so plainly invalid in view of the Supreme Court decision that invalidated other Myriad claims that Myriad’s attempt to enforce them amounts to an antitrust violation. However, I think it is a closer call, at least for some of the claims, as explained in this article.
While it is not likely that Judge Shelby will rule from the bench, it will be interesting to see if the proceedings give any indication of his likely decision. Even though his decision will not be binding on other courts or the USPTO, it is likely that a decision denying the preliminary injunction due to questions of validity would send further ripples of uncertainty throughout the biotech industry.
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.