By Kevin E. Noonan --
The deadline for filing "supplemental briefs" in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("the Myriad case") was Friday, and in addition to Appellants Myriad (Supplemental Brief for Appellant (Myriad)) and Appellees represented by the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation (here), more than a dozen amicus curiae briefs (at last count) were filed. Patent Docs will review these briefs and comment on their contents (or at least the ones that provide a frisson of interesting legal theory or patent policy), but for now we provide a list with links to the briefs.
Two briefs were filed in overt support of the appellants, Myriad Genetics. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), joined by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and the Coalition for 21st Century Medicine filed one of these briefs (here) and the Intellectual Property owners Association filed the other (Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association).
Not unexpectedly, a motley group of patient advocacy organizations, medical associations, law professors, and public policy alliances filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs. These include the National Women's Health Network, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, Forward Together, Center for Genetics and Society, Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, Alliance for Human Biotechnology, Michael Roybal, M.D. and Anne L. Peters. M.D. (Debra Greenfield) (Brief of Amici Curiae The National Women's Health Network, et al.); the American Medical Association, American Society of Human Genetics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association, American College of Legal Medicine, American College of Embryology, and the Medical Society of the State of New York (Brief of Amici Curiae American Medical Association, et al.); the American Association of Retired People (AARP), Canavan Foundation, Claire Altman Heine Foundation, Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered, March of Dimes Foundation, National Association for Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum, and Ovarian Cancer National Alliance (Brief of Amici Curiae AARP, et al.); Penn State Law Professor Eileen M. Kane (Brief of Amici Curiae Professor Eileen M. Kane in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance); and the Knowledge Ecology International and Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (here).
Several briefs were filed nominally "in support of neither party," but at least some of these advocate a position that, if followed by the Court would favor reversal of Judge Sweet's summary judgment of invalidity for the composition of matter claims (directed to isolated DNA molecules) and method claim 20 (directed to drug screening methods). These include the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (Brief of Amici Curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association); the American Intellectual Property Law Association (Brief for Amicus Curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association); Gilead Sciences, Confluence Life Sciences and Euclises Pharmaceuticals (here); Protein Sciences Corporation (here); Law Professor Christopher Holman (here); Eli Lilly & Co. (here); the U.S. Government (here); and Mark J. Gatschet and Richard W. Knight Brief of Amici Curiae Mark J. Gatschet, et al.
In addition to more in-depth coverage of these briefs, we will update the list and links as additional information on these filings comes available.