Page 20 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

668 PARK

Court opinion, Myriad chose to file litigation against ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
some of the labs that began offering testing, asserting The author wishes to thank Sarah Esteban for her
patent claims that were not challenged in the original assistance with this article, as well as participants in
lawsuit (55). The Federal Circuit definitively ruled the Reimagining IP/Gender conference hosted at the
that the patent claims covered products of nature and American University Washington College of Law for
abstract ideas and were therefore invalid (56). This their feedback.
decision was a dramatic departure from the views of
the court just two years earlier, and the impact of the REFERENCES
ruling extended beyond the BRCA gene patents. The
Federal Circuit has cited Myriad in cases invalidating 1. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
patents, demonstrating the heightened scrutiny the Genetics, 133 S.Ct. (2107 2013).
court is now giving to patents that involve products 2. Snow S, Kunkee R, Hodges R, Williams S,
and laws of nature (57-59). inventors; University of California, assignee.
The creation of new relationships and linkages Malolactic Gene. United States patent US
among patients, clinicians, and researchers through 4,472,502. 1984 Sep 18.
the Myriad litigation suggests one promising path 3. U.S. Office of Patent and Trademark. Utility
forward for patent advocacy promoting women’s Examination Guidelines. Federal Registrar.
rights. While the interests of these communities 2001;66(4):1092-1099.
will not always converge on patent law issues, the 4. Br. of James D. Watson, as Amicus Curiae in
lawsuit built bridges that carry forward today on Support of Neither Party, Ass’n for Molecular
advocacy. Many of the experts and supporters of the Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398,
plaintiffs banded together to initiate efforts to make 2013 WL 432951(S. Ct. Jan. 31, 2013).
BRCA genetic variant data more widely accessible 5. Parthasarathy S. Building genetic medicine:
to the scientific community for research purposes breast cancer, technology, and the comparative
(60,61). Several of the plaintiffs and supportive amici politics of health care. Cambridge (MA): Mas-
in Myriad joined together to file amicus briefs in the sachusetts Institute of Technology Press; 2007.
post-Supreme Court litigation (62-64). They also 6. Howell R. Comment 32 on the Revised Interim
filed comments with the USPTO regarding its new Utility Examination Guideline. American Col-
guidance on subject matter eligibility under Section lege of Medical Genetics. 2000 Mar 20.
101 (65). 7. Leonard D. Comment 36 on the Revised Interim
As a rare example of feminist patent litigation, Utility Examination Guidelines. Association for
the Myriad case challenged the prevailing vision of Molecular Pathology. 2000 Mar 17.
the patent system’s purpose as serving patentees and, 8. Scherer S. Comment 25 on the Revised Interim
instead, asserted a broader understanding of appro- Utility Examination Guidelines. 2000 Mar 21.
priate patent regulation, one that advances women’s 9. Burke W. Comment 42 on the Revised Interim
rights. It is thus an early and useful case study in Utility Examination Guidelines. National Advi-
how litigation can be leveraged to broaden partici- sory Council for Human Genome Research,
pation in patent advocacy and further women’s rights National Institutes for Health. 2000 Mar 21.
and social justice aims. Feminist advocacy in this 10. Nat’l Breast Cancer Coalition/Fran Visco. Com-
arena should not only hope to increase the number ment 43 on the Revised Utility Examination
of women inventors but also use feminist method- Guidelines. 2000.
ologies to scrutinize the impact of patent regulation 11. Jensen K, Murray F. Intellectual property
on women’s lives and the policy choices inherent in landscape of the human genome. Science.
current patent practices. 2005;310(5746):239-40.
12. Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282 (Fed.
Cir. 2010).
13. Park S. Gene Patents and the public interest: