NEWS
Pathology and breast cancer suff erers, in May 2009.
Myriad patents invalid
Judge Robert Sweet of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled against Myriad Genetics to invalidate patents relating to methods of detecting inherited breast cancer.
T e ruling favours plaintiff s including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). It disputes Myriad’s hold over the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes, labelling the patents incorrectly granted in terms of composition and method.
As a rule, ‘products of nature’ cannot be patented. T e ACLU and Judge Sweet agree that genes should be restricted by such a rule.
Sweet said: “T e claimed invention, as a whole, [should be] suffi ciently distinct in its fundamental characteristics from natural phenomena to possess the required ‘distinctive name, character, [and] use.’ None of Myriad’s arguments establish the distinctive nature of the claimed DNA.”
Myriad’s method claims involved the comparison and analysis of DNA strands to identify genetic mutations that increase the risk of breast cancer. T e act of isolating and analysing the genetic material does not change the information carried by the material, nor does it represent a signifi cant enough process to pass a ‘machine or transformation’ standard, the judge ruled.
T e ACLU fi led the suit on behalf of several plaintiff s, including the Association of Molecular
www.worldipreview.com
As well as Myriad, the US Patent and Trademark Offi ce (USPTO) was named in the suit, because it granted the patents in question.
Judge Sweet dismissed claims by the plaintiff that the USPTO overreached its authority when granting Myriad its patents.
Jim Greenwood, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), said: “BIO is pleased that the court dismissed the far-reaching claims regarding the constitutionality of patenting gene-based inventions. As explained in the ruling, the district court’s determination is only a preliminary step in the legal process that does not aff ect how the USPTO evaluates patent applications relating to DNA-based inventions.”
UK fi xes football copyright rules
T e High Court in London ruled on April 23 that companies that use football fi xture lists must pay for the right to reproduce them.
T e judgment favours the English and Scottish professional football leagues and Football DataCo Ltd, the organisation that markets and licenses data for the UK professional football leagues.
Defendants Brittens Pools Ltd and Yahoo! UK Ltd, as well as betting companies Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd, Stan James Plc and Enetpulse ApS, lost on their argument that the creators of databases do hold enforceable IP rights.
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2010
7
©
iStockphoto.com / dra_schwartz
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80