1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
  4. Volume 25, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volume 25, 2024

The Decision at 10

Abstract

A decade ago, the US Supreme Court decided , concluding that isolated genes were not patentable subject matter. Beyond being a mere patent dispute, the case was a political and cultural phenomenon, viewed as a harbinger for the health of the biotechnology industry. With a decade of perspective, though, 's impact seems much narrower. The law surrounding patentable subject matter—while greatly transformed—only centered on in small part. The case had only a modest impact on patenting practices both in and outside the United States. And persistent efforts to legislatively overturn the decision have not borne fruit. The significance of thus remains, even a decade later, hidden by larger developments in science and law that have occurred since the case was decided.

Keyword(s): genetics, law, Myriad, patents, Supreme Court
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-010323-011239
2024-08-27
2024-10-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/25/1/annurev-genom-010323-011239.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-010323-011239&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Aboy M, Crespo C, Liddell K, Liddocoat J, Jordan M. 2018.. Was the Myriad decision a “surgical strike” on isolated DNA patents, or does it have wider impacts?. Nat. Biotechnol. 36::1146–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Aboy M, Liddell K, Liddicoat J, Crespo C. 2016.. Myriad’s impact on gene patents. . Nat. Biotechnol. 34::1119–23
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Aboy M, Liddicoat J, Liddell K, Jordan M, Crespo C. 2017.. After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim “markedly different” from nature?. Nat. Biotechnol. 35::820–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (S. Ct.) ( 2014.)
  5. 5.
    Am. Bar Assoc. Sec. Intellect. Prop. Law. 2017.. Supplemental comments related to patent subject matter eligibility. Lett., Am. Bar Assoc. Sec. Intellect. Prop. Law, Chicago, IL:. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RT2%20Comments%20ABA-IPL%20%28Mar.%2028%20Rev%29.pdf ( https://perma.cc/D844-MD6Y )
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Am. Intellect. Prop. Law Assoc. (AIPLA). 2017.. Legislative proposal and report on patent eligible subject matter. Rep. , AIPLA, Arlington, VA:. http://www.aipla.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/aipla-legislative-proposal—patent-eligible-subject-matter.pdf ( https://perma.cc/9EWR-6NE9 )
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (S. Ct.) ( 2023.)
  8. 8.
    Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) ( 2015.)
  9. 9.
    Asif MH, Sabater A. 2023.. Biotech funding rounds rebound in Q2 2023, still on track for a down year. . S&P Global Market Intelligence, Sept. 11. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/biotech-funding-rounds-rebound-in-q2-2023-still-on-track-for-a-down-year-77409968 ( https://perma.cc/2S6E-ACQM )
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (S. Ct.) ( 2013.)
  11. 11.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., brief for amicus curiae Eric Lander in support of neither party. ( 2013.). https://www.broadinstitute.org/files/sections/about/12-398-ac-Lander.pdf ( https://perma.cc/A9G5-HHLE )
  12. 12.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., brief for amicus curiae The Biotechnology Industry Organization in support of respondent ( 2013.). https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/legacy/bioorg/docs/2013-03-14%20Biotechnology%20Industry%20Organization.pdf ( https://perma.cc/GDB5-9AN8 )
  13. 13.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., brief for the United States as amicus curiae in support of neither party ( 2013.). https://www.justice.gov/d9/osg/briefs/2012/01/01/2012-0398.mer.ami.pdf ( https://perma.cc/6MTP-MF39 )
  14. 14.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, 702 F. Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y.) ( 2010.)
  15. 15.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir.) ( 2011.)
  16. 16.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) ( 2012.)
  17. 17.
    Aust. Law Reform Comm. 2004.. Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Rep. 99 , Aust. Law Reform Comm., Sydney. https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ALRC99.pdf ( https://perma.cc/QE86-VWYP )
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Beauchamp C. 2013.. Patenting nature: a problem of history. . Stanford Technol. Law Rev. 16:(2):257–312
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Begley S. 2014.. As top court invalidates some gene patents, biotech has moved on. . Reuters, June 13. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-genes-industry-idUKL2N0EO1XK20130613 ( https://perma.cc/XU2Y-EBF5 )
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Bell G, Pictet R, Goodman HM, Rutter WJ. 1984.. DNA transfer vector and transformed microorganism containing human proinsulin and pre-proinsulin genes. US Patent 4,431,740
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Boston Globe. 2013.. Ruling against gene patents is victory for open research. . Boston Globe, June 14, p. A18
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Campbell JW. 2011.. “ Too early to say”: Zhou was speaking about 1968, not 1789. . Media Myth Alert, June 14. https://mediamythalert.com/2011/06/14/too-early-to-say-zhou-was-speaking-about-1968-not-1789 ( https://perma.cc/5RBK-U2EC )
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Caulfield T, Bubela T, Murdoch CJ. 2007.. Myriad and the mass media: the covering of a gene patent controversy. . Genet. Med. 9::850–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan RM, Kieff FS, Walsh JP. 2006.. Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies. . Nat. Biotechnol. 24::1091–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Weaver MA, Leonard DGB, Merz JF. 2003.. Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. . J. Mol. Diagn. 5::3–8
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Colaianni A, Chandrasekharan S, Cook-Deegan R. 2010.. Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing and carrier screening for Tay-Sachs and Canavan disease. . Genet. Med. 12:(Suppl. 1):S5–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Colliver V. 2013.. Ruling on gene patents praised: patient’ rights advocates say it will spur research. . San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, p. A1
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Commun. Aff. Ref. Comm. 2010.. Gene patents. Rep. , Commun. Aff. Ref. Comm., Aust. Senate, Canberra:. https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community_affairs/completed_inquiries/2010-13/genepatents43/report/∼/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/gene_patents_43/report/report.ashx ( https://perma.cc/UZ22-AVJE )
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Contreras JL. 2020.. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: a critical reassessment. . Mich. Technol. Law Rev. 27::254
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Contreras JL. 2021.. The Genome Defense. Chapel Hill, NC:: Algonquin
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Cook-Deegan R. 1994.. The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome. New York:: Norton
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Crouch D. 2013.. Twenty thoughts on the importance of Myriad. . Patently-O, June 14. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/06/myriad.html ( https://perma.cc/Z2FV-FQYR )
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., FCAFC 115 (F.C. Aust.) ( 2014.)
  34. 34.
    D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., HCA 35 (H.C. Aust.) ( 2015.)
  35. 35.
    Davies K, White M. 1995.. Breakthrough: The Race to Find the Breast Cancer Gene. New York:: Wiley & Sons
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Davis R. 2016.. Kappos calls for abolition of Section 101 of Patent Act. . Law360, Apr. 12. https://www.law360.com/articles/783604/kappos-calls-for-abolition-of-section-101-of-patent-act ( https://perma.cc/3XJH-MHA7 )
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Deverka P, Geary J, Mathews C, Cohen M, Hooker G, et al. 2023.. Payer reimbursement practices and incentives for improving interpretation of germline genetic testing. . J. Law Biosci. 10::lsad020
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (S. Ct.) ( 1980.)
  39. 39.
    Food Drug Adm. 2024.. Laboratory developed tests. . Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/laboratory-developed-tests ( https://perma.cc/A896-VV66 )
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Futreal PA, Liu Q, Shattuck-Eidens D, Cochran C, Harshman K, et al. 1994.. BRCA1 mutations in primary breast and ovarian carcinomas. . Science 266::120–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Genheimer CW. 2015.. A myriad of solutions? A guide for biotech companies in response to the Myriad & Mayo decisions. . Elon Law Rev. 7::431–47
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Goeddel DV, Kohr WJ, Pennica D, Vehar GA. 1998.. Human tissue plasminogen activator. . US Patent 5,753,486
  43. 43.
    Gold ER, Carbone J. 2010.. Myriad Genetics: in the eye of the policy storm. . Genet. Med. 12::S39–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Gold ER, Gallochat A. 2001.. The European Biotech Directive: past as prologue. . Eur. Law J. 7::331–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Gold RE, Cook-Deegan R, Bubela T. 2013.. AMP v. Myriad: a surgical strike on blockbuster business models. . Sci. Transl. Med. 5::192ed9
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Goodman HM, Shine J, Seeburg PH. 1982.. Recombinant DNA transfer vectors. US Patent 4,363,877
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    GovTrack. 2023.. S. 2140: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023. . GovTrack. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/s2140 ( https://perma.cc/Y4UA-A9W4 )
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Greely HT. 2013.. A side note on AMP v. Myriad Genetics: the curious concurrence of Justice Antonin Scalia. . Law and Biosciences Blog, June 13. https://law.stanford.edu/2013/06/13/lawandbiosciences-2013-06-13-a-side-note-on-amp-v-myriad-genetics-the-curious-concurrence-of-justice-antonin-scalia ( https://perma.cc/NH26-KGX7 )
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Greely HT. 2020.. The two months in 1980 that shaped the future of biotech. . STAT, Oct. 17. https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/17/two-months-in-1980-shaped-the-future-of-biotech ( https://perma.cc/D429-E8N9 )
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Greenhouse L. 1980.. Science may patent new forms of life, Justices rule, 5 to 4. . New York Times, June 17, p. A1
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Gusella JF, Wexler NS, Conneally PM, Naylor SL, Anderson MA, et al. 1983.. A polymorphic DNA marker genetically linked to Huntington's disease. . Nature 306::234–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Hall JM, Lee MK, Newman B, Morrow JE, Anderson LA, et al. 1990.. Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. . Science 250::82–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Hall SS. 1987.. Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize a Human Gene. Boston, MA:: Atl. Mon.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Handley P. 2013.. Biotech industry worries over US court's DNA ruling. . Agence France-Presse, June 13
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Harkness JN. 2011.. Dicta on adrenalin(e): myriad problems with Learned Hand's product-of-nature pronouncements in Parke-Davis v. . Mulford. J. Patent Trademark Off. Soc. 93::363–99
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Heidelberger C, Duschlasky R. 1957.. 5-Fluorouracil. US Patent 2,802,005
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Holman CM. 2013.. A critique of a recent article which found that sequence patents cover the entire human genome. . Holman's Biotech IP Blog, Apr. 5 http://holmansbiotechipblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-critique-of-recent-article-which.html ( https://perma.cc/J6Y2-3U64 )
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Hoyt AS. 2022.. The impact of uncertainty regarding patent eligible subject matter for investment in U.S. medical diagnostic technologies. . Wash. Lee Law Rev. 79::397–452
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Hughes SS. 2001.. Making dollars out of DNA: the first major patent in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology, 1974-1980. . Isis 92::541–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Human Genome Sciences Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., UKSC 51 (Sup. Ct. U.K.) ( 2011.)
  61. 61.
    Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 967 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir.) ( 2020.)
  62. 62.
    In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, 3 F. Supp.3d 1213 (D. Utah) ( 2014.)
  63. 63.
    In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir.) ( 2014.)
  64. 64.
    In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.) ( 2005.)
  65. 65.
    Intellect. Prop. Own. Assoc. 2017.. Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Propos., Intellect. Prop. Own. Assoc., Washington, DC:. https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/20170207_IPO-101-TF-Proposed-Amendments-and-Report.pdf ( https://perma.cc/5U7U-989Y )
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Jensen K, Murray F. 2005.. Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. . Science 310::239–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Kepler TB, Crossman C, Cook-Deegan R. 2010.. Metastasizing patent claims on BRCA1. . Genomics 95::312–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Kevles DJ, Berkowitz A. 2001.. The gene patenting controversy: a convergence of law, economic interests, and ethics. . Brooklyn Law Rev. 67::233–48
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Khorana HG. 1957.. Synthesis of nucleoside phosphates. US Patent 2,795,580
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    King M-C. 2014.. “ The race” to clone BRCA1. . Science 343::1462–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    King S. 2008.. Pink Ribbons, Inc.: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy. Minneapolis:: Univ. Minn. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Kling Z. 2016.. A myriad of reasons: incentives for innovation in genetic research and diagnostics post-Myriad. . Biotechnol. Pharm. Law Rev. 9::133
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (S. Ct.) ( 2001.)
  74. 74.
    Lai JC. 2015.. Myriad Genetics and the BRCA patents in Europe: the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision. . UC Irvine Law Rev. 5::1041–76
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Leclerc O, Suhendra M, The L. 2022.. What are the biotech investment themes that will shape the industry?. McKinsey & Company, June 10. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/what-are-the-biotech-investment-themes-that-will-shape-the-industry ( https://perma.cc/TA5T-DS39 )
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Liddicoat J, Liddell K, Aboy A. 2020.. The effects of Myriad and Mayo on molecular test development in the US and Europe: interviews from the frontline. . Vanderbilt J. Entertain. Technol. Law 22::785–837
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Liptak A. 2013.. Justices, 9–0, bar patenting human genes. . New York Times, June 14, p. A1
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    MacDonald ME, Ambrose CM, Duyao MP, Myers RH, Lin C, et al. 1993.. A novel gene containing a trinucleotide repeat that is expanded and unstable on Huntington's disease chromosomes. . Cell 72::971–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Magnus D. 1998.. Disease gene patenting: the clinician's dilemma. . Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 7::433–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Matalon R, Kaul R, Cao GP, Balamurugan K, Michals-Matalon K. 1997.. Aspartoacylase gene, protein, and methods of screening for mutations associated with Canavan disease. US Patent 5,679,635
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Matloff E. 2022.. Myriad Genetics (MYGN) to share guarded BRCA variant information in public database. . Forbes, Nov. 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenmatloff/2022/11/03/myriad-genetics-mygn-to-share-guarded-brca-variant-information-in-public-database ( https://perma.cc/4KN3-82E8 )
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (S. Ct.) ( 2012.)
  83. 83.
    Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, Futreal PA, Harshman K, et al. 1994.. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. . Science 266::66–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Murphy PD, Allen AC, Alvares CP, Critz BS, Olson SJ, et al. 1997.. Consensus sequence of the human BRCA1 gene. US Patent No. 5,654,155
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Myriad Genet. 2013.. Supreme Court upholds Myriad's cDNA patent claims. . https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2013/06/13/553990/15459/en/Supreme-Court-Upholds-Myriad-s-cDNA-Patent-Claims.html ( https://perma.cc/RC7D-KNPY )
  86. 86.
    Myriad Genetics v. OncorMed, Case No. 2:97-cv-00922 (D. Utah) ( 1997.)
  87. 87.
    Myriad Genetics, Inc. v. University of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:98-cv-0829 (D. Utah) ( 1998.)
  88. 88.
    Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (S. Ct.) ( 2014.)
  89. 89.
    Nicol D, Dreyfuss RC, Gold ER, Li W, Liddicoat J, Van Overwalle G. 2019.. International divergence in gene patenting. . Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 20::519–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (S. Ct.) ( 2018.)
  91. 91.
    OncorMed, Inc. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., Case No. 1:97-cv-02722 (D.D.C.) ( 1997.)
  92. 92.
    Park SS. 2018.. The challenge to gene patents as feminist patent litigation. . Technol. Innov. 19::659–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co., 189 F. 95 (S.D.N.Y.) ( 1911.)
  94. 94.
    Parthasarathy S, Walker A. 2014.. Observing the patent system in a social and political perspective: a case study of Europe. . In Patent Law in Global Perspective, ed. RL Okediji, MA Bagley , pp. 321–44. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Pires de Carvalho N. 2004.. The problem of gene patents. . Wash. Univ. Glob. Stud. Law Rev. 3::701–53
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Price WN II. 2012.. Unblocked future: why gene patents won't hinder whole genome sequencing and personalized medicine. . Cardozo Law Rev. 33::1601–31
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Quest Diagn. 2011.. Quest Diagnostics completes acquisition of Athena Diagnostics. . PR Newswire, Apr. 4. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/quest-diagnostics-completes-acquisition-of-athena-diagnostics-119173144.html ( https://perma.cc/A745-32MN )
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Rai AK, Chien CV, Clark J. 2023.. Molecular diagnostics patenting after Mayo v. Prometheus: an empirical analysis. Duke Law Sch. Public Law Leg. Theory Ser.: 2023-69. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4648623
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Reimers N. 1987.. Tiger by the tail. . Chemtech, Aug. , pp. 464–47
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Rockoff JD. 2013.. Court's decision spurs new gene tests. . Wall Street Journal, June 14, p. B1
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Rooksby JH. 2013.. Myriad choices: university patents under the sun. . J. Law Educ. 42::313–26
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Rosenfeld JA, Mason CE. 2013.. Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome. . Genome Med. 5::27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    RTTNews. 2022.. Labcorp closes acquisition of privately-held Personal Genome Diagnostics. . RTTNews, Feb. 21. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/labcorp-closes-acquisition-of-privately-held-personal-genome-diagnostics ( https://perma.cc/BR2C-TU2Y )
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Shapiro JK. 2021.. Laboratory developed tests: members of Congress ask FDA to do their job for them. . FDA Law Blog, May 18. https://www.thefdalawblog.com/2021/05/laboratory-developed-tests-members-of-congress-ask-fda-to-do-their-job-for-them ( https://perma.cc/FGG7-XKUH )
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Shattuck-Eidens DM, Simard J, Durocher F, Emi M, Nakamura Y. 1997.. Linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene. US Patent 5,693,473
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Sherkow JS. 2013.. And how: Mayo v. Prometheus and the method of invention. . Yale Law J. Online 122::351–58
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Sherkow JS. 2014.. Preliminary injunctions post-Mayo and Myriad. . Stanford Law Rev. Online 67::1
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Sherkow JS. 2018.. The CRISPR patent landscape: past, present, and future. . CRISPR J. 1::5–9
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Sherkow JS, Greely HT. 2013.. The future of gene patents and the implications for medicine. . JAMA Int. Med. 173::1569–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Sherkow JS, Greely HT. 2015.. The history of patenting genetic material. . Annu. Rev. Genet. 49::161–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Sherkow JS, Scott C. 2014.. Myriad stands alone. . Nat. Biotechnol. 32::620
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Simoncelli T, Park SS. 2015.. Making the case against gene patents. . Perspect. Sci. 23::106–45
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Stone DK. 1996.. What made Myriad Genetics’ IPO sizzle?. Nat. Biotechnol. 14::24–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Taylor DO. 2020.. Patent eligibility and investment. . Cardozo Law Rev. 41::2019–116
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    US Pat. Trademark Off. 2013.. Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. . Memo. , US Pat. Trademark Off., Alexandria, VA:. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/exam/myriad_20130613.pdf ( https://perma.cc/9SE2-6PLG )
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    US Pat. Trademark Off. 2024.. Subject matter eligibility (examination guidance by date of issuance). . US Patent and Trademark Office. https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility-examination-guidance-date ( https://perma.cc/WY3K-DK64 )
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    van Overwalle G, ed. 2007.. Gene Patents and Public Health. Brussels:: Bruylant
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, Swift S, Seal S, et al. 1994.. Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12–13. . Science 265::2088–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Wooster R, Neuhausen SL, Mangion J, Quirk Y, Ford D, et al. 1995.. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. . Nature 378::789–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-010323-011239
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error