Page 21 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

FEMINIST CHALLENGE TO GENE PATENTS 669

litigating association for molecular pathology v. undergoing BRCA analysis need BART testing?
myriad genetics and lessons moving forward. N Cancer Genet. 2011;204(8):416.
C J Law Technol. 2014;15(4):519–536. 29. Walsh T, Casadei S, Coats KH, Swisher E, Stray
14. Complaint, Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. SM, Higgins J, Roach KC, Mandell J, Lee MK,
Patent and Trademark Office, No. 09 Civ. 4515 Ciernikova S, Foretova L, Soucek P, King MC.
(S.D.N.Y May 12, 2009). Spectrum of mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2,
15. Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pat- Chek2, and TP53 in families at high risk of breast
ent and Trademark Office, 669 F. Supp. 2d 365 cancer. JAMA. 2006;295(12):1379.
(S.D.N.Y. 2009). 30. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
16. Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology:
Patent & Trademark Office, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181 genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and
(S.D.N.Y. 2010). ovarian. Fort Washington (PA): NCCN; 2012.
17. Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pat- 31. Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pat-
ent & Trademark Office, 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. ent & Trademark Office, 689 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir.
2011). 2012).
18. Bartlett K. Feminist legal methods. Harvard Law 32. Haraway D. Situated knowledges: the science
Rev. 1990;103(4):829. question in feminism and the privilege of partial
19. Yanisky-Ravid S. Eligible patent matter–gender perspective. Feminist Studies. 1988;14(3):575.
analysis of patent law: international and com- 33. Parthasarathy S. Patent politics: life forms, mar-
parative perspectives. Am Univ J Gender Soc kets & the public interest in the United States
Policy Law. 2011;19(3):851. & Europe. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago
20. National Cancer Institute. BRCA1 and BRCA2: Press; 2017.
cancer risk and genetic testing. 2015 Apr 1. 34. 35 U.S.C. § 282.
21. Davies K, White M. Breakthrough: the race to 35. Burk D. Do patents have gender? Am Univ J
find the breast cancer gene. Hoboken (NJ): John Gender Soc Policy Law. 2011;19(3):881.
Wiley & Sons; 1996. 36. Simoncelli T, Park S. Making the case against
22. Williams-Jones B. History of a gene patent: gene patents. Perspect Sci. 2015;23(1):106-145.
tracing the development and application of com- 37. Br. of Amici Curiae Am. Med. Ass’n et al. In
mercial BRCA testing. Health Law J. 2002;10:132. Support of Pet’rs, Association for Molecular
23. Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Wearer MA, Leonard Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, 2013
DG, Merz JF. Effects of patents and licenses on WL 390998 (S. Ct. Jan. 29, 2013).
the provision of clinical genetic testing services. 38. Br. for Amici Curiae of the Ethics & Religious
J Mol Diagn. 2003;5(1):3-8. Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist
24. Cook-Deegan R, Niehaus A. After Myriad: Convention and Prof. D. Brian Scarnecchia In
genetic testing in the wake of recent Supreme Support of Pet’rs, Association for Molecular
Court decisions about gene patents. Current Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, 2013
Genetic Medicine Reports. 2014;2(4):223-241. WL 432955(S. Ct. Jan. 31, 2013).
25. Decl. of Wendy Chung. Ass’n for Molecular 39. Br. for Canavan Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae
Pathology, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. In Support of Pet’rs, Association for Molecular
26, 2009). Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, 2013
26. Decl. of Elizabeth Swisher, Ass’n for Molecular WL 432956 (S. Ct. Jan. 31, 2013).
Pathology, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 40. Br. Amici Curiae of the National Women’s Health
26, 2009). Network et al. In Support of Pet’rs, Association
27. American Medical Association. Policy D-460.971 for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No.
Genome Analysis and Variant Identification. 12-398, 2013 WL 417730 (S. Ct. Jan. 30, 2013).
28. Shannon KM, Rodgers LH, Chan-Smutko G, 41. Schwartz J. Cancer patients challenge the patent-
Patel D, Gabree M, Ryan PD. Which individuals ing of a gene. NY Times. 2009 May 12 [accessed