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

« Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz | Main | Stopping Bad Patents -- Senator Schumer Takes on the "Patent Trolls" »

March 31, 2014

Comments

I love the snark, but it's over for Myriad and its ilk. It's been over for a long time, and certainly well before Judge Shelby's order. At this point I am reminded of a certain quote by Colonel Nathan R. Jessup after being told by Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee "I want the truth"....

No, Gary, it's not. Myriad just means that, in future, "hoarding" diagnostically relevant mutations will be the only way to protect such a company's investment. We will see if that makes people happier than what has transpired during the Myriad era. Let's see if you can handle that truth.

And, for the record, BCD is one of the more thoughtful people working in this area and has actually contributed more than simple philosophical opposition to Myriad.

"Dr. Cook-Deegan further attempts to implicate the government's rights in the BRCA genes (stemming from National Institute of Health support for the basic genetic research underlying discovery of the BRCA genes)."

Kevin,

Bob actually suggested that Bayh-Dole "march-in-rights" are in play here in Myriad? With all due respect, Bob has completely misinterpreted this "march-in-rights" provision of Bayh-Dole, as have some others. If Bob doesn't believe me, he should talk to Joe Allen (a legislative aid for Birch Bayh) who was intimately involved in the Bayh-Dole legislation, and would tell Bob that any belief by Bob that "march-in-rights" are in play here in Myriad is utter nonsense.

If the argument for 102(g) invalidity centers on work by a team of BRITISH inventors, how is the challenger going to get over the "in this country" part of 102(g). The allegedly anticipating activity is supposed to have taken place in 1994-95. Evidence of invention in a WTO country is admissible for 102(g) AFTER 1 Jan 1996, but if I am understanding correctly, that sort of evidence would already be too late because Myriad filed in 1995, showing that they had already invented by then.

I gather that these British inventors had an American collaborator at Duke, and I suppose that evidence of his contribution to the invention is admissible. However, the fact that he is only a CO-inventor tells me that his own work is not going to amount to enough, by itself, to anticipate.

In other words, how exactly is this 102(g) argument supposed to succeed? Did the British group convey their ideas to the American collaborator, and he reduced them to practice in North Carolina (like the recent Solvay v Honeywell decision)?

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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