E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« USPTO News Briefs | Main | GEN Compiles List of Top Biopharma R&D Spenders »

March 19, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017ee9940572970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IPO Files Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents in AMP v. Myriad Genetics:

Comments

After reading Kevin's criticisms of others' briefs in this case (including Myriad's own), I was wondering why he didn't file his own amicus brief. Glad for him and for the rest of us that he got to make the case that (I hope) he wanted to make (and on someone else's dime, no less!).

Don,

Not a bad effort by IPO that directly attack’s the fallacies in the ACLU’s/PubPat’s position. If only they would have also put in the “bleeding heart” story of Ms. Bruzzone and Lynch syndrome patients dying for lack of patenting diagnostics for this genetic disease . . . .

Kevin,

Glad you got input in on this IPO brief. Myriad would have done better to let you help them too.

Interesting although incorrect statement in the brief: "The nucleotide sequence on each strand is complementary to the other
strand, as found by Watson and Crick as the basis for DNA being the genetic material."

Watson and Crick's discovery was not the basis for determining that DNA was the genetic material. That discovery belonged to Hershey and Chase.

Dear Master:

I think you misunderstood my sentence. Hershey and Chase established that DNA was the genetic material, but Watson and Crick found that complementary base pairing was the basis for DNA being the genetic material. Although to be precise, theirs was more a discovery that predicted DNA would have its structure (and the consequences for genetics that did not escape their notice).

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31