Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=25502748
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
The impact of Myriad and Mayo: will advancements in the biological sciences be
spurred or disincentivized? (Or was biotech patenting not complicated enough?)
#MMPMID25502748
Gordon J
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med
2014[Dec]; 5
(5
): a020917
PMID25502748
show ga
For years, purified and isolated naturally occurring biological substances of
great medical importance--including genes--have been the subject of U.S. patents.
Similarly, methods in which the detection of a biological substance (e.g., in a
blood sample) dictates subsequent actions, as in disease diagnostics and
treatment, have long enjoyed patent protection. However, two recent Supreme Court
cases, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (133 S. Ct.
2107) (2013) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
(132 S. Ct. 1289) (2012), have shaken up the status quo of biotech patenting. The
highest court in our land unanimously agreed with patent challengers that much of
what we took for granted as patentable subject matter is not, as a matter of law,
eligible for patenting after all. This review discusses the Myriad and Mayo
cases, their impact on which biology-based innovations we may or may not continue
to patent, and whether the altered status quo is benignly corrective or gravely
disruptive. Is what happened here a good thing or not?
free
free
free
