After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim 'markedly different' from nature?

The Myriad Decision at 10

A decade ago, the US Supreme Court decided Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 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, Myriad's impact seems much narrower. The law surrounding patentable subject matter-while greatly transformed-only centered on Myriad 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 Myriad thus remains, even a decade later, hidden by larger developments in science and law that have occurred since the case was decided.

Opening options for material transfer

The Open Material Transfer Agreement is a material-transfer agreement that enables broader sharing and use of biological materials by biotechnology practitioners working within the practical realities of technology transfer.

Continental drift? Do European clinical genetic testing laboratories have a patent problem?

Recent US Supreme Court decisions have invalidated patent claims on isolated genomic DNA, and testing methods that applied medical correlations using conventional techniques. As a consequence, US genetic testing laboratories have a relatively low risk of infringing patents on naturally occurring DNA or methods for detecting genomic variants. In Europe, however, such claims remain patentable, and European laboratories risk infringing them. We report the results from a survey that collected data on the impact of patents on European genetic testing laboratories. The results indicate that the proportion of European laboratories that have refrained from providing associated testing services owing to patent protection has increased over the last decade (up from 7% in 2008 to 15% in 2017), and that the non-profit sector was particularly strongly affected (up from 4% in 2008 to 14% in 2017). We renew calls for more readily available legal support to help public sector laboratories deal with patent issues, but we do not recommend aligning European law with US law at present. Watchful monitoring is also recommended to ensure that patents do not become a greater hindrance for clinical genetic testing laboratories.

International Divergence in Gene Patenting

This review explores the recent divergence in international patent law relating to genes and associated subject matter. This divergence stems primarily from decisions of the highest courts in the United States and Australia on the eligibility of patent claims relating to the BRCA gene sequences. Patent offices, courts, and policy makers have struggled for many years to clearly articulate the bounds of patent claims on isolated and synthetic DNA and related products and processes, including methods for their use in genetic diagnostics. This review provides context to the current divergence by mapping key events in the gene patent journey from the early 1980s onward in five key jurisdictions: the United States, the member states of the European Patent Convention, Australia, Canada, and China. Early approaches to gene patenting had some commonalities across jurisdictions, which makes exploration of the recent divergence all the more interesting.There is insufficient empirical evidence to date to confidently predict the consequences of this recent divergence. However, it could potentially have a significant effect on local industry and on consumer access.