Today, in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit held that non-naturally occurring DNA is patent eligible as well as the use of a transformed, non-naturally occurring cell for screening drug candidates. Myriad’s method claims directed to “comparing” or “analyzing” DNA sequences were held to be patent-ineligible. A copy of the Federal Circuit’s decision is attached Federal Circuit Myriad Decision. A detailed analysis by Foley & Lardner, LLP and this blog post will follow.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Related Insights
05 December 2024
Consumer Class Defense Counsel
Sixth Circuit: Reliance Can Bar Class Certification Even if Not Express Element of Consumer Statutory Claim
Courts routinely refuse to certify consumer class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) based on the need for an individualized showing of the reliance element of a fraud or deceptive trade practices claim.
05 December 2024
Consumer Class Defense Counsel
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Updates “Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices” Booklet
Financial institutions that are regulated and supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) should know that the OCC has recently updated its booklet on Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices.
04 December 2024
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
What Every Multinational Company Should Know About … Nearshoring into Mexico: Key Considerations in Weighing the Pros and Cons
Mexico is a key player in both the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and Latin American regions.