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


« New Patent Litigation Bill Introduced in House | Main | News from Abroad: Second Referral for the "Broccoli" Patent Case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal »

July 17, 2013



As Joe Allen commented on IPWatchdog, Leahy's request is misguided and completely contrary to when "march-in-rights" were intended to be applied under Bayh-Dole. Then Congressman (now Senator) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried the same misguided approach earlier with Norvir and Xalatan years ago and was correctly rebuffed by NIH.

If implemented as Sen. Leahy suggests, wouldn't this be an example of a working requirement/ compulsory license? And hasn't the US in fact filed a complaint with the WTO against other countries (e.g., Brazil) for imposing working requirements? If Sen. Leahy is so concerned about the cost of the test, perhaps the US government should subsidize the cost for women who can't afford it rather than attempting to strip the patentee of their rights.

Donald: "Interestingly, of the ten patents that Myriad recently asserted against Ambry Genetics, only two (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,747,282 and 5,753,441) are assigned (on their face) to the U.S. government (as well as to Myriad and the University of Utah Research Foundation)."

I'd be interested in hearing discussion of any implications of this finding, i.e., why is this "interesting"?

What are the implications for a company failing to assign an invention that was, in fact, created with government funds?

When the government is an assignee of an invention, how does this affect licensing and litigation of the co-owned patent?

Do Myriad's asserted patents that are not assigned "on their face" to the government include a statement in the specification about the invention having been made with government funds?

Potential Owner:

It is interesting because the government does not appear to have rights in several of the patents that Myriad believes cover its test.

With regard to statements regarding federal funding, I was unable to identify, following a cursory review, such a statement in any of the patents (including the two for which the U.S. government is named as an assignee).

Thanks for the comment.


Hmm. Presumably government funds and grant money was used to identify the BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequences. Are any of Myriad's claims non-obvious uses of that information? If so, I haven't seen one yet. It would seem that the US government has rights to all of Myriad's inventions relating to BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Did the US government negotiate its rights away, or ...?

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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 31