Myriad Appeals AMP v. USPTO Decision

    By Kevin E. Noonan --

Myriad Genetics, for itself as well as the named defendant Directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation, filed a Notice of Appeal today in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  As a consequence, the decision by Judge Robert Sweet holding that patents to human genes were not statutory subject matter as being the "physical embodiment of genetic information" will be reviewed by the Federal Circuit, and perhaps ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Federal Circuit has not yet set a briefing schedule, which Patent Docs will post when it becomes available.  It can be expected that the Court will be the beneficiaries of several amicus briefs.  It will be interesting to see if amici include universities, whose patent portfolios will be the most harmed by affirmance of the gene patenting ban promulgated by Judge Sweet.

For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:

• "AMP v. USPTO: What Everyone Else Is Saying - Part II," June 8, 2010
• "AMP v. USPTO: What Everyone Else Is Saying," April 6, 2010
• "'60 Minutes' and 'Newshour' Take Different Apporaches to Covering Gene Patenting Story," April 5, 2010
• "AMP v. USPTO: What the Parties Are Saying About the Decision," April 1, 2010
• "Caught in a Time Warp: The (In)validity of BRCA1 Oligonucleotide Claims," March 30, 2010
• "Round One Goes to the ACLU," March 29, 2010
• "Debating Gene Patents - Round Four," February 10, 2010
• "Newsweek = Newspeak on Gene Patenting," February 8, 2010
• "Everybody Knows -- The Boston Globe Weighs in on Gene Patenting," February 1, 2010
• "The USPTO Asks out of Gene Patenting Case (Again)," January 19, 2010
• "Top Stories of 2009: #4 to #1," January 4, 2010
• "Gene Patenting: Australian Potpourri," December 28, 2009
• "Science Progress Article Examines Impact of Gene Patents on Research," December 21, 2009
• "Gene Patenting Debate Continues - Round Three," December 17, 2009
• "BRCA Patent Suit to Continue in Southern District of New York," November 2, 2009
• "Empirical Research Fails to Support Gene Patenting Ban," October 22, 2009
• "The Tragedy of a Bad Idea," August 25, 2009
• "Gene Patenting Debate Continues - Round Two," August 4, 2009
• "The Unwanted Consequences of Banning Gene Patenting," June 16, 2009
• "Falsehoods, Distortions and Outright Lies in the Gene Patenting Debate," June 15, 2009
• "Gene Patenting Debate Continues," June 9, 2009
• "Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office," May 17, 2009
• "Court Report: Special Edition," May 13, 2009

Comments

[EG]

Kevin,

I waiting for the "verbal bloodshed" to occur in due course when the Federal Circuit hears this case.

[Geoff Karny]

The Fed Circuit will probably overturn the decision in no uncertain terms. However, it will just be a way station on the way to the Supreme Court. Who knows what the technological illiterates there will do with this case? I'm afraid that they will buy into the ACLU's bogus women's health arguments and agree with the District Court.

[6]

"will be reviewed by the Federal Circuit, and perhaps ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court."

If they do go to the USSC can you get me a seat Kev? I totally do not want to have to show up at midnight the night before the case to get a seat. Although, if it comes to that at least I'll be ready this time. I'll totally get your lunch if you can get me a seat.

In the mean time, I'll see you boys at the CAFC. I will have to keep my eye open for when the panel hearing is going to happen, those things always slip by me.

"It will be interesting to see if amici include universities, whose patent portfolios will be the most harmed by affirmance of the gene patenting ban promulgated by Judge Sweet."

It will probably read a little something like this:

Qqq qqqqq qq qqqqqqq qqq qqqqqqqqq q q qq. Q qqqqq qq qqq q qqqqqqq qqqq.

QQ!!!!!!!!

Qqqqq qq q qqqqq.

Sincerly,
University

[EG]

Geoff,

I sure hope they don't buy into the ACLU's bogus arguments, as well as Judge Sweet's nonsensical opinion.

[Gena777]

What I wonder is whether there will be any government amicus filers; that's pretty important, as Uncle Sam holds way more influence over the courts than do any other amici. In any case, there seems to be little question that this case will be the subject of patent litigation for years to come.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/general-patent-gets-results-its-clients