Invalidating Human Gene Patenting: The U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

2013 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 680-681
Author(s):  
James Kalyvas ◽  
Andrew S. Little
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Jeremy Sklarzyk ◽  
Emma Jameson ◽  
Nasteha Abdullahi ◽  
Mahnoor Shah

Genes are found in every living thing. They make us who we are. In the modern age of rapid technological advances, it is common for new discoveries to be patented for profit. A question arises. Does finding and isolating a human gene make it patentable by a company? This question has spurred much controversy over the last few years. Last year, a medical company called Myriad Genetics tried to patent the human gene that is responsible for breast cancer. To further understand the opinions of the public with regards to the issue of gene patenting, we conducted a study in one high school in Mississauga. Our results showed that the majority of teenagers are against gene patenting. However, we learned that teens knew very little about this issue. This motivated us to take action by making two informational videos on gene patenting to spread awareness among our peers and the wider community. In addition, we reached out to a group called Breast Cancer Association (BCA) by writing a letter to express our solidarity. We received a ‘thank you’ reply for BCA shortly after the U.S. Supreme


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-417
Author(s):  
Emanuela Gambini

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., holding that “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring”.This case note gives an overview of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, which is focused on the product of nature doctrine, and discusses its implications for the implementation of the criterion of isolation to DNA sequences and the United States Patent and Trademark Office's long-standing practice of granting patents on isolated DNA sequences (author's headnote).


1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document