A Landmark Case: The Aftermath of Myriad Genetics

By Gene Quinn
April 14, 2011

Richard Marsh, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Myriad Genetics

Next on the agenda at the BIO Intellectual Property Counsels Committee Conference meeting in Seattle is the so-called Myriad case, Association of Molecular Pathology v. U.S.P.T.O, moderated by Andrew T. Serafini, Ph.D., Partner, IP Group & Life Sciences Practice, Fenwick & West LLP.  I have been following the case closely since its beginning, so I am keenly interested in the case.  I am separately working on a “readers digest like” summary of the oral arguments that took place at the Federal Circuit on April 4, 2011, so look for that in the coming days.

The first speaker on the second panel was Debra Greenfield, an attorney and Adjunct Assistant Professor, UCLA Center for Society and Genetics.  It was a bit difficult for me to follow her presentation, oddly enough, because she was reading her presentation.  Time and time again it seemed as if she was phrasing her background of the case and what is at stake as one who supports the ACLU challenge, ending with she looks forward to defending her position in the question and answer session.  As it turns out, she is in favor the the ACLU position, which caught me by surprise.  Let’s face it, the BIO IP attorneys are not exactly a friendly audience for her, but kudos to the program committee for attempting to provide a balance perspective of the case despite the obvious biases (which I share) of those in the audience.

Richard M. Marsh, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Myriad Genetics is on the panel.  He started off his presentation explaining that he really wants to talk about the case and the issues, but given that the case is ongoing and the future is uncertain regarding whether it will continue to be appealed, go back to trial or be dismissed altogether he might be unable to answer all questions.  He did say clearly that the biotechnology industry “is under attack.”  Marsh explained that the industry needs to be proactive because “if we sit back and idly do nothing there could be grave consequences.”  Marsh explained that Myriad was able to do what it did thanks to the patents by giving it the time, money and incentive to innovate.  I couldn’t agree with him more.


Marsh explained that one of the charges levied against Myriad is that they prohibit research.  Marsh said that just isn’t so and, in fact, said that the one thing that Myriad and every other company in the personal life sciences space must have is research.  Research is necessary in order to get adoption and Myriad has funded research.  Marsh explained that if you look at the fact there just isn’t any support for the proposition that Myriad has ever suppressed research efforts.  In fact, he says there are 8,000 articles with 18,000 researchers who have published articles demonstrating they engaged in using the Myriad patented innovation.  During the question and answer segment Marsh even pointed out that some 30 to 40 of the plaintiffs in the case have published showing that they have used Myriad claims without any enforcement efforts against them.

Marsh also explained the truth relating to one of the plaintiffs who is alleging that Myriad rejected her insurance.  In fact, as it turns out, her insurance was the Massachusetts version of Medicare.  The reason Myriad couldn’t accept the insurance wasn’t because they didn’t want to, but because the only way to accept this insurance is to have a negotiated contract and Massachusetts wouldn’t negotiate with Myriad despite repeated attempts by Myriad to negotiate.  Additionally, Myriad went to great lengths to get her the test for free, and she did ultimately have the test.  So the ACLU characterization of Myriad refusing to accept her insurance and being big, bad, evil and greedy just don’t jive with the actual facts.

Allow me to interject here — those darn pesky facts getting in the way of the ACLU argument again!  Time and time again in the Myriad case we see that the ACLU doesn’t understand patent law, they either recklessly get the science wrong or knowingly make false statements about the science, and as it turns out they egregiously mischaracterize basic facts about insurance coverage and Myriad’s attempts to get testing to all those who want such testing.

Huw Hallybone, a partner at Carpmaels & Ransford in London, took to the podium to discuss the European view of DNA patents.  Yes, DNA is patentable in Europe.  He started with the European Biotech Directive of July 6, 1998, and which says: “An element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element.”  Hallybone explained that this was very different from where the European Directive drafts started back in the 1980s, which would not have allowed for the patenting of DNA.

The panel discussion turned back to Greenfield to discuss her perspective of the oral arguments in the Federal Circuit case.  She started by saying that the oral argument was difficult to follow, which I find curious really.  I didn’t find the oral arguments difficult to follow, although if you support the ACLU I can understand why your head would be spinning after the oral argument, which seemed overwhelmingly skeptical to the ACLU position, both relative to the substance and science of the case, as well as to the fact that there are real questions about whether there is standing for any of the plaintiffs to have brought a Declaratory Judgment case, time and time again Judge Moore troubled with what the ACLU was asking, which was to basically throw away the two-prong test and just assume that Myriad’s challengers would practice the invention, despite the affidavits of those having at least some evidence of apprehension of a lawsuit saying at best that they would likely have an earnest desire to consider whether they would engage in allegedly infringing activities, which Judge Bryson characterized as qualifications on qualifications, and which I just can’t see supporting a DJ action.  Additionally, on standing, it seems unlikely that the Federal Circuit will allow consumers who want cheaper generics to bring Declaratory Judgment Actions seeking to invalidate patents.

Frankly, I am finding it difficult to sit here and listen to Greenfield, who is now talking about how the Federal Circuit refused to discuss or even acknowledge that the underpinnings of the law of patent eligibility is to prevent patenting of that which is the product of nature.  The trouble she has, and which the ACLU will have, is that it ignores the science.

Is DNA a product of nature? Yes.  Is isolated DNA a product of nature? Absolutely not.  So Greenfield and the ACLU need you to believe that anything that is derivative of a product of nature is unpatentable, and that is simply not true.  The Supreme Court addressed that point head on directly in Chakrabarty where they held that genetically modified bacterium is patentable eligible subject matter.  The key was and always has been human intervention.  Is a bacterium a product of nature?  Yes.  Is a genetically modified bacterium a product of nature?  Absolutely not.  This is exactly what the Supreme Court recognized in Chakrabarty and exactly why the case is directly on point.  Greenfield and the ACLU obviously don’t like the law, but pretending that it is not the law seems naive to the extreme.

As Greenfield sat down, Marsh again took the podium to discuss his views of the oral argument.  He said that he thought the Federal Circuit wants to address the patent eligible subject matter issue under 35 U.S.C. 101, but said he thinks they will have a hard time getting past the jurisdictional issues.  I tend to agree.  I personally think that most of the plaintiffs will be found not to have standing to have brought the Declaratory Judgment Action.  I also believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the entire case will be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.  It seems certain to me that the consumer plaintiffs will be found not to have standing, and then it gets interesting.  Those with the best first prong evidence for a DJ have little or no second prong evidence, and those with second prong evidence have no first prong evidence.  Jurisdiction will be interesting indeed.

In summary, Marsh explained that he thought it was clear that the Federal Circuit panel thought that isolated DNA is a separate chemical entity compared with naturally occurring DNA.  Marsh said: “But for the handy-work of man, isolated DNA would not exist.”  And at the end of the day that seems to sum up the entirety of the case.  If you ask me, there is zero chance the ACLU will prevail at the Federal Circuit, and when they appeal to the Supreme Court they will lose as well.  Given the state of the and how it so clearly mandates a Myriad victory and an ACLU loss it seems likely that this case is not about the Myriad patents, but rather about gene patents in general.  I think these challenges are just the first battle and ultimately the fight will go to Congress.


My presence at the BIO IP Counsels Committee Conference has been facilitated thanks to BIO and the Practising Law Institue.  I would like to thank BIO for providing me media access and privileges to the event, and for working to facilitate an exclusive interview with Erik Iverson of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who will provide the keynote address.  I would also like to thank PLI, our major sponsor at IPWatchdog.com, for underwriting my travel expenses.  Thanks to the generous support of PLI we have been able to engage in news gathering activities coast to coast.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded IPWatchdog.com in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 18 Comments comments.

  1. step back April 15, 2011 5:31 am

    Time and time again in the Myriad case we see that the ACLU … recklessly get[s] the science wrong or knowingly make[s] false statements about the science


    I’m just curious about a hypothetical that could have (but didn’t) arise out this case: What if the ACLU had claimed that the “science” behind the cancer-predicting capabilities of the BRAC isolation technique was a “hoax” (and that is why the patent should be invalidated)?

    What if they had found at least one person who claimed to be a scientist and who claimed to be “skeptical” about the cancer-predicting capabilities of the BRAC isolation technique?

    The reason I ask is because there is another, more hotly debated issue about getting the “science” right or wrong. It too deals with predicting outcome in probabilistic terms (just as predicting likelihood of getting cancer due to presence of the BRAC I and II genes is based on statistics).

    You know what issue I’m getting at.


    Climate Change (a.k.a. Global Warming).

    In each case you have people who are “skeptical” and want to throw Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (the FUD factors) into the fires of the debate because that advances their political cause even if it sets “science” back to the Medieval Ages by “getting-the-science-wrong”.

    So why is getting-the-science-wrong a valid criticism of the anti-Myriad crowd but not a valid criticism of the anti-Climate-Change crowd?

    Critical thinking minds just wanting to know here. 🙂

  2. step back April 15, 2011 5:47 am

    Just to throw a little more kerosene into the fires of the debate, please consider the video embedded in this web page … except I would start watching at 2:45 into the politician’s talk, not later.


    Perhaps a graduate of the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology should decide the Myriad case?

  3. step back April 15, 2011 6:02 am

    Just to be “fair and balanced” about the politician’s speech, here is a link (You-Tube) to Part I, where to his credit, he does promote the idea of invention and inventors and how that is critical to our nation’s well being:


  4. Blind Dogma April 15, 2011 8:20 am

    Step back,

    You cannot help yourself from stepping into that abyss, can you not?

    Climate Change (a.k.a. Global Warming).

    aka NOT – for the reasons that have been presented and the fact that “Change” has never been denied. “Change” is the only constant. The sooner you realize this the sooner you will stop sounding like a crackpot.

    Critical thinking minds just wanting to know here

    You are showing a decidedly un-critical mind by ignoring the posts of Gene and I on this subject. Making up cute denials (FUD-What anyone?) is not an activity for a critical mind.

  5. step back April 15, 2011 2:10 pm

    Just stirring the pot here on a slow Friday morning.
    I guess you don’t see the hypocrisy and the analogy here.

    Let me make it clearer for you.

    Those who support Myriad’s right to claim a purified “composition of matter” (and that includes me) start arguing a thing called “science” as an opposition to the ACLU’s warm and fuzzy rhetoric about “they’re snatching our body parts away from us with fancy lawyer tricks”.

    Science says that a purified “composition of matter” is different than a unpurified one.
    Simple example is sea water. That’s “water” right? But drink it and you will die of dehydration. ACLU types might not understand the “science” behind that (cell membrane osmosis). They just like arguing on the basis of warm and fuzzy “sound” sensations.

    Well it’s the same thing with you BD and that other fellow who sides with you re the “Climate Change” thing. You want to make a big deal about the sound byte (“change” “change” “change”) and avoid dealing with the underlying science. You say you are “skeptical” and that’s good enough for you. I’ve made up my mind and please don’t confuse with facts. That sort of thing. Exactly the same sort of thing the anti-Myriad people are saying. How can you be standing behind both sides of the science-versus-rhetoric dividing line at the same time?

  6. Blind Dogma April 15, 2011 8:02 pm


    Your mere assertion that all of my (and Gene’s comments) are mere rhetoric belie the fact that they are not.

    It was you that engaged in mere rherotric, politicizing the discussion (like that ever brought clarity), then descended into outright denial and pedanticism – does my discussing the Aether in this senence bring the theory of Aether back into repute? How about Flat Earth, or Earth as center of the Universe – yet that is exactly the tactics you tried to use.

    You do not need to try to make anything “clearer” for me. The discussion is quite clear. What you see as hypocrisy only appears so through the Kool Aid googles you donned (and evidently have not taken off) in the prior discussions. Like I mentioned, no one has ever argued against climate change. Ever.

    When you realize this and realize the slight of hand by those attempting to transform Global Warming into Climate Change, you may realize how blind you are in this area.

  7. step back April 15, 2011 9:16 pm


    As they say, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is _._._declared a nut case.

    The only question is which of us is the one-eyed man and which of us is the blind one?

    Let’s raise our mugs full of Kool-Aid and toast to that observation.
    Have a good weekend 😉

  8. Blind Dogma April 16, 2011 10:58 am

    Step back,

    Your desire for self-immolation on this topic is indeed puzzling. You raise the issue again to “stir the pot”, but ignore the comments already made, as if raising the issue again somehow wipes the board clean. Now here, you resort again to a pithy statement without substance or tie in to what already has been presented. There is no question as to which of us is the one-eyed man and which of us is the blind one, as that question has already been answered – you are being purposefully blind.

  9. step back April 17, 2011 12:44 pm


    Suggest you read the following:

    The ancient Greek sea-god Poseidon (Neptune to the Romans), also called “Earth-Shaker,” was thought to cause earthquakes when provoked or angry.

    In more recent times, thinkers have tended to scoff at such primitive notions and the gestures that went with them, suggesting instead that science and technology — the fruits of civilization — offer more than enough help to allow us to triumph over the Earth’s destructive forces. This shift in consciousness has been impressively documented in Clive Ponting’s 2007 volume, A New Green History of the World. Quoting from influential thinkers of the post-Medieval world, he shows how Europeans acquired a powerful conviction that humanity should and would rule nature, not the other way around. The 17th-century French mathematician René Descartes, for example, wrote of employing science and human knowledge so that “we can … render ourselves the masters and possessors of nature.”

    then consider whether our recent successes in invention and technology have made us too clever for our own good.

    (source of blockquote)

  10. step back April 17, 2011 12:45 pm

    Gene: release from spam filter requested here- thanks

  11. Blind Dogma April 18, 2011 9:42 am

    Step back,

    then consider whether our recent successes in invention and technology have made us too clever for our own good.

    I am already aware of the materials you present. They change nothing about our conversations. Your logic and attempts to hide from the plain truth are not availed. It is as if you close your eyes and think that because you cannot see that you cannot be seen.

  12. step back April 18, 2011 12:00 pm

    People oft project their own biases onto others.

    (So are those your fears, that when you close your eyes you disappear? We can talk it out if you need to.)

  13. Blind Dogma April 18, 2011 12:57 pm

    People oft project their own biases onto others.

    You assume that is what I am doing.

    Making such unwarranted assumptions is yet another weak link in your attempts at “stirring the pot” on this subject.

    Give it up Step Back, you are fighting a losing battle.

  14. step back April 18, 2011 2:09 pm


  15. step back April 18, 2011 6:33 pm

    … and drinking more of the Kool Aid

    (come on it wasn’t that hard to figure out DB)

  16. Blind Dogma April 18, 2011 8:29 pm

    Sorry Step – super busy.

    Plus, I would rather be ripping Bobby apart than engaging in a rather pointless exercise until/if you actually decide to address the numerous points already hanging out there on the GW/CC switcharo.

  17. patent enforcement April 19, 2011 12:56 pm

    Myriad is much more than this year’s hot patent litigation (i.e., the successor to Bilski). It’s critical for the courts to get this one right. I hope the Justices of the SCOTUS are already doing their research, so they’ll be proficient on the details when this case finally reaches them.