AMP v. USPTO -- Briefing Update

By Donald Zuhn --

On October 22, Defendants-Appellants Myriad Genetics, Inc. and ten Directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation filed their brief in Association of Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (see "Myriad Files Appeal Brief in AMP v. USPTO").  Pursuant to Rules 29(e) and 31(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amicus curiae briefs in support of Defendants-Appellants were due on Friday, October 29 (7 days after Defendants-Appellants' brief was filed), Plaintiffs-Appellees' brief must be filed within 40 days after Defendants-Appellants' brief is filed (Wednesday, December 1), 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 (Wednesday, December 8).  As of last Friday's deadline, five amicus briefs have been filed:

• Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in support of Defendants-Appellants, supporting reversal (brief)
• Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the Association of University Technology Managers, supporting reversal (brief)
• Genetic Alliance, supporting reversal, but not in support of either party (brief)
• The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), in support of neither party (brief)
• United States, in support of neither party (brief)

Patent Docs provided a summary of the United States amicus brief on Sunday (see "DOJ Tries to Be All Things to All Constituencies in Myriad Amicus Brief") and we will be providing summaries of the remaining briefs over the next two weeks.  We are also interested in securing copies of any other amicus briefs that may be filed in this appeal.

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

• "DOJ Tries to Be All Things to All Constituencies in Myriad Amicus Brief," October 31, 2010
• "Myriad Files Appeal Brief in AMP v. USPTO," October 28, 2010
• "AMP v. USPTO -- Briefing Schedule Update," August 22, 2010
• "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

[Karen Canady]

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) also filed an amicus brief on Friday, in support of neither party, but supporting reversal: http://www.aipla.org/Content/ContentGroups/About_AIPLA1/AIPLA_Reports/20106/AIPLA-Myriad-Amicus-filed.pdf

[johnny]

How can that brief be "in support of neither party" yet urge reversal in favor of Myriad??

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Dear Johnny:

The brief does not argue that the patents-in-suit are not invalid, just that the district court's decision was legal error.

But you are correct, Myriad will benefit from reversal.

Thanks for the comment.

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Thanks, Karen. We will post on the brief.