{"id":452,"date":"2020-05-10T18:23:14","date_gmt":"2020-05-10T18:23:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kronengold.com\/?p=452"},"modified":"2020-09-22T16:55:04","modified_gmt":"2020-09-22T16:55:04","slug":"association-for-molecular-pathology-v-myriad-genetics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kronengold.com\/association-for-molecular-pathology-v-myriad-genetics\/","title":{"rendered":"Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
By:  Steve Kronengold, Simone Wolf and Yehuda Kronengold<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

\u00a9 October 2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All rights reserved<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.<\/em>, 569 U.S. ___ (June 13, 2013) Action No. 12-398, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and held that a DNA segment which is isolated from a naturally occurring DNA sequence is patent ineligible, but affirmed the CAFC\u2019s ruling that synthetically created DNA, i.e<\/em>. complementary DNA (\u201ccDNA\u201d), which contains only the protein-coding nucleotides found in natural DNA, is patent eligible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court in Myriad<\/em>, after reaffirming the notion that the goal of issuing patents is to encourage innovation and not stifle it, distinguished between the identification of naturally occurring DNA, which is not patentable, and the synthetic creation of an altered version of DNA (cDNA), which is patentable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the Court\u2019s opinion, for a claimed product or process to be patentable, the claimed product or process must include an act of creation or invention, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n