By Donald Zuhn --
In June, Myriad Genetics and ten Directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation filed a Notice of Appeal in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, seeking review of the decision by Judge Robert W. Sweet of the Southern District of New York granting partial summary judgment that the claims of several patents on BRCA1 were invalid as encompassing non-statutory subject matter (see "Myriad Appeals AMP v. USPTO Decision" and "Round One Goes to the ACLU"). On Thursday, the Federal Circuit issued an Order granting a motion by Myriad and the Directors for a 60-day extension to file their brief. Plaintiffs-Appellees opposed the motion. Defendants-Appellants now have until October 22 to file their brief in the case. Pursuant to Rule 29(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amicus curiae briefs in support of Defendants-Appellants must be filed no later than 7 days after Defendants-Appellants' brief is filed, and amicus curiae briefs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees (or in support of neither party) must be filed no later than 7 days after Plaintiffs-Appellees' brief is filed. Pursuant to Rule 31(a)(2), Plaintiffs-Appellees' initial brief must be filed within 40 days after Defendants-Appellants' brief is filed.
For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:
• "Uh-oh: It Looks Like Judge Dyk Has Been Drinking the ACLU's Kool-Aid®," August 11, 2010
• "FCBA Submits Amicus Brief on Motion for Recusal in AMP v. USPTO," August 9, 2010
• "Appellees Move for Recusal of Chief Judge Rader in AMP v. USPTO Appeal," July 19, 2010
• "Facts, Perhaps the Antidote to the Anti-gene Patenting Plague," July 18, 2010
• "AMP v. USPTO after Bilski v. Kappos," July 6, 2010
• "Myriad Appeals AMP v. USPTO Decision," June 16, 2010
• "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