Patents and Genome-Wide DNA Sequence Analysis: Is it Safe to Go into the Human Genome?

See Curnutte M. McGuire A. L. and Kaufman D. J. , Development of the Clinical NGS Industry in a Shifting Policy Climate, Nature Biotechnology (forthcoming, October 2014) and McGuire A. L. , Clinical Integration of Next Generation Sequencing: A Policy Analysis, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42, no. 3, Supp. (2014): 5–8.

Graff G. D. Phillips D. and Lei Z. , Not Quite a Myriad of Gene Patents, Nature Biotechnology 31, no. 5 (2013): 404–410.

Jensen K. and Murray F. , Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome, Science 310, no. 5746 (2005): 239–240; Hopkins M. M. Mahdi S. Thomas S. M. and Patel P. , The Patenting of Human DNA: Global Trends in Public and Private Sector Activity (The PATGEN Project), A report for the European Commission, compiled by Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, November 2006, available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2395987> (last visited July 29, 2014); Schauinger S. , Human Gene Patent Report, 2012, available at <http://hgpr.org/finalHGPR.pdf> (last visited June 13, 2014); Holman C. M. , Debunking the Myth that Whole-Genome Sequencing Infringes Thousands of Gene Patents, Nature Biotechnology 30, no. 3 (2012): 240–244; Price W. N. , Unblocked Future: Why Gene Patents Won't Hinder Whole-Genome Sequencing and Personalized Medicine, Cardozo Law Review 33, no. 4 (2012): 1601–1632.

Id. (Holman) supra note 3; also see Price, supra note 3.

Feldman R. and Price W. N. II , Patent Trolling – Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals Are at Risk, Social Sciences Research Network, UC Hastings Research Paper #93 (2014), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2395987> (last visited July 29, 2014).

Rai A. K. and Cook-Deegan R. , Moving beyond ‘Isolated’ Gene Patents, Science 341, no. 6142 (2013): 137–138; Gold R. E. Cook-Deegan R. and Bubela T. , AMP v. Myriad: A Surgical Strike on Blockbuster Business Models, Science Translational Medicine 5, no. 192 (2013): 192ed199; Kesselheim A. S. Cook-Deegan R. M. Winickoff D. E. and Mello M. M. , Gene Patenting – The Supreme Court Finally Speaks, New England Journal of Medicine 369, no. 9 (2013): 869–875.

Myriad Genetics, BRCA Patent Owners and Gene by Gene, Ltd. Resolve Patent Suit Press Release, February 7, 2014.

Oral Arguments in Association for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 2011 (April 4, 2011).

Id.

Id.

Heller M. A. and Eisenberg R. S. , Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, Science 280, no. 5364 (1998): 698–701.

Seesupra note 2.

See Heller and Eisenberg , supra note 10; Doll J. J. , Talking Gene Patents, Scientific American 285, no. 2 (2001): 28; Healy B. , On Gene Patenting, New England Journal of Medicine 327, no. 9 (1992): 664–668; Kiley T. D. , Patents on Random Complementary DNA Fragments? Science 257, no. 5072 (1992): 915–918.

Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics and Genetic Technologies Ltd. In.: Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District, 2013.

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. _ 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).

Huys I. Berthels N. Matthijs G. and Van Overwalle G. , Legal Uncertainty in the Area of Genetic Diagnostic Testing, Nature Biotechnology 27, no. 10 (2009): 903–909.

SeeMayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., supra note 14.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, US Distrct Court for the Southern District of New York.

Association of Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office, Rev'd in part; aff'd in part edn: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2010.

Association of Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2011.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Reversed in part, affirmed in part edn: U.S. Supreme Court, 2013.

Id.

Green R. C. Berg J. S. Grody K. W. Kalia S. S. Korf B. R. Martin C. L. McGuire A. L. Nussbaum R. L. O'Daniel J. M. and Ormond K. E. , ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing, Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 7 (2013): 565–574.

SeeAssociation of Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 19.

University of Utah, v. Ambry Genetics, U.S. District Court for Utah.

U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: In Re: BRCAlAND BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigaton, February 27, 2014.

University of Utah, v. Ambry Genetics, U.S. District Court for Utah, Case 2:13-cv-00640-RJS.

Memorandum decision and order denying plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, Case 2:13-cv-00640-RJS Document 185, U.S. District Court for Utah, 2014.

Myriad Genetics Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case: 14–1361 Document: 2–1, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2014.

Seesupra note 28.

Seesupra note 29.