Advanced

Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round? The Association for Molecular Pathology v USPTO., 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Minssen, Timo and Schwartz, Robert LU (2013) In Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 3(1). p.70-80
Abstract
In March 2011 the Supreme Court issued its Prometheus opinion and granted certiorari, and reversed and remanded Myriad I for consideration in light of Prometheus. In August 2012 the Myriad II decision was issued. The panel in Myriad II repeated most of their separate Myriad I opinions. Myriad deja vu looked much like Myriad I with panel members agreeing that Prometheus did not control the composition of matter claims. The opinions differed on whether composition claims were to be analysed from a chemical, structural or carrier of information standpoint with respect to laws of nature. The rationales used such rhetorical metaphors as cleaving, baseball bats, magic microscopes, extracted kidneys, slabs of marble or marble statues, the Sistine... (More)
In March 2011 the Supreme Court issued its Prometheus opinion and granted certiorari, and reversed and remanded Myriad I for consideration in light of Prometheus. In August 2012 the Myriad II decision was issued. The panel in Myriad II repeated most of their separate Myriad I opinions. Myriad deja vu looked much like Myriad I with panel members agreeing that Prometheus did not control the composition of matter claims. The opinions differed on whether composition claims were to be analysed from a chemical, structural or carrier of information standpoint with respect to laws of nature. The rationales used such rhetorical metaphors as cleaving, baseball bats, magic microscopes, extracted kidneys, slabs of marble or marble statues, the Sistine Chapel, and whether cells were `transformed' molecules or 'carriers of information'. The differing evaluations of patent-eligibility and the cursory manner in which they addressed the Supreme Court's GVR mandate may well guarantee a return appearance before the Supreme Court or, at a minimum, en banc review by the Circuit. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
patent eligibility, US, Myriad, DNA, diagnostics, personalized medicine, standing
in
Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property
volume
3
issue
1
pages
70 - 80
publisher
Edward Elgar Publishing
external identifiers
  • wos:000329412600006
  • scopus:84905910339
ISSN
2045-9807
DOI
10.4337/qmjip.2013.01.05
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
957280b6-7712-4074-ac90-aac86576d015 (old id 4330117)
date added to LUP
2014-02-26 11:43:26
date last changed
2019-08-14 02:35:18
@article{957280b6-7712-4074-ac90-aac86576d015,
  abstract     = {In March 2011 the Supreme Court issued its Prometheus opinion and granted certiorari, and reversed and remanded Myriad I for consideration in light of Prometheus. In August 2012 the Myriad II decision was issued. The panel in Myriad II repeated most of their separate Myriad I opinions. Myriad deja vu looked much like Myriad I with panel members agreeing that Prometheus did not control the composition of matter claims. The opinions differed on whether composition claims were to be analysed from a chemical, structural or carrier of information standpoint with respect to laws of nature. The rationales used such rhetorical metaphors as cleaving, baseball bats, magic microscopes, extracted kidneys, slabs of marble or marble statues, the Sistine Chapel, and whether cells were `transformed' molecules or 'carriers of information'. The differing evaluations of patent-eligibility and the cursory manner in which they addressed the Supreme Court's GVR mandate may well guarantee a return appearance before the Supreme Court or, at a minimum, en banc review by the Circuit.},
  author       = {Minssen, Timo and Schwartz, Robert},
  issn         = {2045-9807},
  keyword      = {patent eligibility,US,Myriad,DNA,diagnostics,personalized medicine,standing},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {70--80},
  publisher    = {Edward Elgar Publishing},
  series       = {Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property},
  title        = {Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round? The Association for Molecular Pathology v USPTO., 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012)},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2013.01.05},
  volume       = {3},
  year         = {2013},
}