September 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 272


September 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Myriad's Breast Cancer Test Patents Not Patent Eligible

Following a 2013 decision in which the Supreme Court invalidated Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s patents on human genes, the Federal Circuit this month went a step further, and held that Myriad’s breast cancer test patents are also patent ineligible under Section 101.  In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patient Patent Litigation, (Fed. Cir., Dec. 17, 2014).  The Federal Circuit’s decision calls into question broad categories of patents in biotechnology, life sciences, and related fields involving uses and methods of natural materials.  In the 2013 Supreme Court case, the Court invalidated claims of Myriad’s ‘282 patent directed to isolated DNA strands, including typical strands and mutations that are correlated to an increased likelihood of developing certain breast or ovarian cancers.  The Supreme Court held that the claims directed to the isolated DNA were patent ineligible because the isolated DNA strands were naturally occurring and a natural phenomenon. 

In this new Federal Circuit opinion, the court addressed the validity of different claims of the same ‘282 patent and related patents, including composition of matter and method claims.  The composition of matter claims were directed at synthetically replicated primers that contained the identical DNA sequences of the naturally occurring DNA strands that the Supreme Court found to be patent ineligible in the earlier case.  The Federal Circuit held the composition of matter claims invalid on the same grounds, explaining that “neither naturally occurring compositions of matter, nor synthetically created compositions that are structurally identical to the naturally occurring compositions, are patent eligible.” 

The method claims were directed to screening for alterations of the BRCA1 genes, and involved comparison of the subject’s gene sequence to that of a typical or “wild-type” gene.  The Federal Circuit held that the method claims were patent ineligible under Alice in that: (1) they were unpatentable “abstract ideas” comprised of comparing two gene sequences; and (2) the claims did not add any “inventive concept,” but recited routine and conventional steps that were already well known by scientists involved in making and analyzing such comparisons.  This case could have broad implications for the validity of a wide range of patents involving natural materials, synthetic replications, or methods for analyzing, comparing, or manipulating those materials. 

© 2022 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 354

About this Author

William Berndt  Honigman Miller trade secrets false advertising trade secret law

 Mr. Berndt is a trial lawyer with substantial experience in state and federal courts across the country. He focuses his practice on trade secret and false advertising claims. He represents businesses and senior executives in disputes relating to noncompetition agreements, trademark and copyright, fraud, professional liability, internal investigations, and general business and commercial litigation. Mr. Berndt has first-chair experience in trials, arbitrations and other proceedings.

  • Litigates requests for emergency relief such as temporary...
David L. De Bruin appellate attorney patent litigation USPTO Honigman Chicago
Of Counsel

Mr. De Bruin is a seasoned first-chair trial and appellate attorney. He concentrates his practice on patent litigation and related proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. De Bruin successfully argues legal issues, as well as explain the most complex technology to judges and juries.

  • Tries patent cases in a variety of venues before judges and juries and has successfully argued numerous patent cases before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Represents clients in a wide array of technology ranging from mechanical and electrical devices...
Marcus D. Fruchter lawyer Honigman Chicago office litigation specialist

Mr. Fruchter defends or initiates litigation when it is inevitable and avoids lawsuits where possible. He provides zealous and creative representation that protects his clients’ legal rights and advances their strategic objectives. Mr. Fruchter litigates in state and federal courts across the country, and he has handled matters involving international and cross-border issues.

  • Resolves disputes for clients in a variety of areas, including intellectual property, commercial fraud, securities investigations, contract interpretation and enforcement, and professional malpractice...
Nicholas A. Gowen Honigman Chicago complex commercial litigation attorney t

Mr. Gowen represents companies, individuals and law firms in disputes, including those involving intellectual property, trade secrets, unfair competition, employment matters and other business litigation matters. He approaches litigation with an eye toward results; understanding that advancing his clients’ litigation strategies should fit within their overall business interests.

  • Counsels businesses on ways to avoid litigation and resolve disputes using alternative measures
  • Authors articles on various business litigation topics
Steven A Weiss Litigation attorney Honigman Law firm Chicago ediscovery
Leader, Complex Commercial Litigation Practice Group

Mr. Weiss provides advice on a wide variety of business litigation for companies and business people. He is focused on resolving business disputes with particular experience handling intellectual property, breach of contract, trade secret, employment and covenant not to compete matters. Local and national companies and individuals retain Mr. Weiss to handle a full range of business disputes because they trust his judgment and litigation skills.

  • Provides cost-effective representation that achieves results - either through settlement...