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

« The War on Patent Trolls -- Congress Prepares for Battle | Main | Webinar on Patent Trolls »

September 19, 2013

Comments

Wow. Lawyers who misrepresent, obfuscate and skew both scientific facts and case law. I guess there's a first time for everything.

Kevin,

An excellent summary of defendants' response to Myriad's preliminary injunction request. As you point out, there are many inconsistencies and illogical positions being taken by the defendants. I do hope these come back to haunt them.

If the future means no patent protection for such marvel concepts, it is a shame to envision the future of personalized medicine. If this all goes against Myriad, what happens when any company, Ambry and gene by gene included, when something new and unique comes about? If not patentable, all companies will have access to their discovery and innovation, and nobody will be willing to put millions of dollars into research and development, changing of guidelines or gaining insurance coverage - all because there will be no reason for company A to pay so that company B can benefit and sell out at a lower price because they didn't have to lay out the funding for such things. What a shame to set this type of precedent.

Wow. What will the world off genetics become with no patents? Who will foot the bill for getting societal guidelines to change, insurance criteria to change and education of the physicians? What about research and development? This is not a cholesterol test we are talking about, folks. This is new, innovative medical screening that cost a company hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. If the future of genetics has no patentability, growth in this field will cease to exist. Company A won't pay millions for company B to come in at a lower price (because company B didn't have the expense of R&D and education). Caution, world. Be careful what you wish for. I don't understand the rush - patents are NOT forever!!!

"In their most interesting argument, defendants assert that they do not infringe because "they do not use or intend to use probes specific for any known variations of BRCA1 that predispose a patient to certain cancers," "[t]hat is, the probes that Ambry and Gene by Gene uses or will use will only identify BRCA1 and are not specific for any particular allele, as required by the claim."

That is an interesting argument. Myriad can't possibly own the right to sequence BRCA1, for any reason, and the recitation of a generically described unpatentable class of primers isn't going to help them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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