Online symposium announcement: Are genes patentable?
on Jan 31, 2013 at 10:50 am
In early February, the blog will host an online symposium to discuss how the Court should rule (and why) on the question presented by Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: whether human genes are patentable. In this case, respondent Myriad Genetics holds a patent on two genes, mutations in which are correlated with a higher risk of breast or ovarian cancer, in their “isolated” state. The petitioners in this case – including medical professionals who use genetic testing to examine genes, but are unable to examine the genes at issue in this case – filed a similar petition in 2011; in 2012, the Court granted the petition, vacated the decision below, and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit in 2012 for further consideration in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., another decision involving the intersection between patent law and medicine. On remand, the Federal Circuit agreed with Myriad that genes are patentable. The Supreme Court granted review on November 30, 2012.
The online symposium will be hosted on the blog from February 4-8. Before the symposium starts, Lyle Denniston will have a “Made simple” post to introduce the case. A list of contributors is below the jump.
- Dan Burk – University of California, Irvine Law School
- Robert Cook-Deegan – Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy
- Robin Feldman – Hastings College of the Law
- Christopher Holman – UMKC School of Law
- Susan McBee and Bryan Jones – Baker Donelson
- Rob Merges – University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall
- Kevin Noonan – McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
- Arti Rai – Duke University School of Law
- Charles Rothfeld – Mayer Brown
- Andrew Torrance – University of Kansas School of Law
