Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawLitigationTechnology Media and TelecomSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to DNA Primers and Methods of Use Unpatentable

By Veronica Mullally Munoz
January 31, 2015

The Federal Circuit's decision in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 2014-1361, -1366 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2014) is the latest in the series of Myriad cases dealing with the patentability of genetic material. The U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013), held that claims drawn to isolated DNA were patent-ineligible subject matter. Ambry Genetics (Ambry) began offering BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic testing kits following that decision. In July 2013, Myriad Genetics, the University of Utah Research Foundation, the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, HSC Research and Development LP, and Endorecherche, Inc. (collectively “Myriad” hereinafter) sought to, inter alia , enjoin Ambry and asserted infringement of six claims (from three patents) that had not previously been considered by the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court. The Utah District Court denied Myriad's motion for a preliminary injunction and the Federal Circuit panel, Prost, Clevenger and Dyk affirmed. Circuit Judge Dyk delivered the opinion of the court.

The four composition of matter claims on appeal are directed to primers which are short, synthetic, single-stranded DNA molecules that bind complimentary target DNA and enable synthesis of DNA having all or part of the sequence of a BRCA gene in a DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The two method claims on appeal involve comparison of wild-type BRCA gene sequences with the patient's BRCA gene sequence. The lower court held all six claims patent ineligible as claiming naturally occurring DNA sequences and/or abstract ideas.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.