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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Court Report - Part III | Main | The Relevance of Patent Exhaustion in the Myriad Genetics Case »

December 14, 2010


did you see this one:

E. Richard Gold (McGill Law) and Tania Bubela (U Alberta Sch Pub Hlth) filed an amicus on the Dec deadline. You can get it from Richard at [email protected]; and ACLU has posted the brief on its site:

At least 12 amicus briefs have been filed in support of the plaintiffs-appellees:

They should rename this case to be called "The People v. Big Business and Researchers"

Thanks to all (except 6) for providing links to these briefs.

David: Thanks for the link; the AMA et al. amici brief was listed in our post among those briefs filed after the October 29 deadline (in support of Defendants-Appellants) but before the December 7 deadline (in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees or in support of neither party).

Bob: Thanks for the link to the Gold et al. amici brief. We will add it to our next list.

Leah: Thanks for the link to additional amicus briefs. We will add these briefs to our list and try to get to most (if not all) of them.

These guys are against the March of Dimes.

You'd think that ordinary rational people would think 2x about doing something that even the March of Dimes comes out against.

Just think Kev, everytime you put a dime in one of those little things at 711 you're supporting the other side. That is, if you put dimes in there.

"Patents on gene sequences have contributed to patients’ deaths."

There's a pithy quote from the brief that Koepsell cited.

Remember, everytime you advocate for gene patents you are in fact advocating for death. It seems that, in a manner of speaking, it is simply a round about way of murdering people. I wonder if the PO could refuse a patent on the grounds that it could not issue the patent because doing otherwise would make them a party to murder? I mean, would the patent be "entitled to a patent under the LAW" if issuance thereof is in fact breaking the law?

I also wonder, would Kev have the gumption to speak his position to the face of a person who in fact is slated to die from his advocacy?

"During this period at least one patient, age 10, died from her undiagnosed Long QT syndrome; her death could have been prevented had testing been available."

Another pithy quote. How's that blood on your hands feel? How's that blood money feel in your pocket?

Before you get yourself further into a lather, there, 6, first ask yourself: just because they say it, does it make it true? And, how much was any unavailability of a test to a particular patient due to an insurance conmpany not paying for it (no matter what the cost)? And what would be the cost in lost lives if the test wasn't available in the first place, not only now but after the patent expires?

I can sleep at night, don't worry about me.

" just because they say it, does it make it true?"

They provide citations, which I will trust since your industry's murderous intent seems readily apparent to all.

"And, how much was any unavailability of a test to a particular patient due to an insurance conmpany not paying for it (no matter what the cost)?"

I'm not particularly sure how this matters, [redacted]. But perhaps you have some murderous way of explaining how it should matter, in the slightest. If you're trying to blame being evil on another company being evil, I'm pretty sure the 2x wrongs not being equal to a right applies.

"And what would be the cost in lost lives if the test wasn't available in the first place, not only now but after the patent expires?"

Hypothetically speaking about the instant case? None? It seems that another group was about to make it available the subsequent week, or perhaps even before Myriad did, but after the patent was filed. [Redacted].

To be sure Kev, I'm hamming it up. But I'm only doing it to raise your blood pressure to give you a heart attack whereupon hopefully you'll appreciate the availability of medical diagnostics, i.e. doctors checking you out and making decisions, a little more. Or maybe you won't, because your doctor will pause to look up if his diagnostic test is infringing a patent and you'll die on the table :(

"I can sleep at night, don't worry about me."

Only until your subconcious catches up to you, muahahahahaha.

In all srsness though, have you ever spoken to a victim of your advocacy who subsequently died as a result thereof?

"“[P]atents were not needed to develop genetic tests for hearing loss, SCA [spinocerebellar atrophy], breast cancer, LQTS [long-QT syndrome], Canavan disease, and HH [hereditary hemochromatosis]. Indeed, all of these tests were on the market before the test offered by the relevant patent-rights holder.” Id. at 31."

Lookie lookie. I have no doubt that it would have been before Myriad put their test on the market in the BRCA case as well.

Patents: Slowing down your natural phenomena, law of nature, and abstract idea innovation implementation since 1952 (or before :) ).

There's that lather we were talking about, 6.

Calling people murderers doesn't help rational debate, so I'll let that go. The fact is that many things are developed concurrently, with an ultimate patentee prevailing due to priority. So the fact that there were other tests (not patented because they were not first) doesn't matter.

We could decide that diagnostic medical methods are not patent-eligible. That's fine, although I think it would be a mistake. The problem is that the claims the ACLU and friends are attacking have very little to do with those tests, and indeed the methods can be practiced without infringing those claims. Before you dispute me, like you told me on another thread, YOU. KNOW. NOTHING. ABOUT. BIOTECH., so please just accept the the court could reverse, the Supreme Court decide on the diagnostic method issue per Bilski, and we would both be happy (although you more than me, because I think such a Supreme Court decision would be a mistake).

And the funny thing is, I am likely to make even more money under those circumstances, because protecting technology outside the patent system is less transparent and hence benefits from clever strategies we lawyers are known for. My retirement account thanks you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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