In the Aftermath of the “Myriad Case” – Myriad Is Denied Preliminary Injunction Against Ambry Genetics

On March 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court of Utah, Central Division, decided in University of Utah Research Foundation, et al., v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, holding that “Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction”, as they “are unable to establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claims” nor “that the equitable factors support issuance of the requested injunction”.This case note gives an overview of the U.S. District Court's of Utah memorandum decision and order denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and discusses its implications for the implementation of the criterion of isolation to “synthetic” DNA sequences, such as primers and probes.

Download Full-text

The Product of Nature Doctrine in the Myriad Saga II

European Journal of Risk Regulation ◽

10.1017/s1867299x00002725 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 (3) ◽

pp. 409-417

Author(s):

Emanuela Gambini

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Dna Sequences ◽

Molecular Pathology ◽

The United States ◽

Case Note ◽

United States Patent ◽

Naturally Occurring ◽

Myriad Genetics ◽

States Patent ◽

The U.S

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).

Download Full-text

Consolidated Gold Fields Plc v. Minorco, S.A.

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2203383 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 83 (4) ◽

pp. 923-929

Author(s):

W. Hardy Callcott

Keyword(s):

Subject Matter ◽

Federal District ◽

District Court ◽

Mining Company ◽

Tender Offer ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

Securities Law ◽

Preliminary Injunction ◽

Target Company ◽

The U.S

Minorco, S.A., a Luxembourg mining company allegedly controlled by South African interests, commenced a tender offer for Consolidated Gold Fields, PLC (Gold Fields), a British mining company. Gold Fields, together with its partially owned American subsidiary, Newmont Mining Corp. (Newmont), filed suit in U.S. federal district court to enjoin the tender offer. The district court held that Newmont, the affected American subsidiary, had standing to raise an antitrust claim and issued a preliminary injunction restraining the tender offer. The district court dismissed a claim based on alleged violation of U.S. securities laws for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and held that Gold Fields, as the target company, did not itself have standing to raise an antitrust claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (per Newman, J.) reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that: (1) Newmont had standing under the U.S. antitrust laws to object to the tender offer; (2) Gold Fields also had antitrust standing (by 2-1); and (3) the U.S. courts did have subject matter jurisdiction over Gold Fields’s U.S. securities law claims. Accordingly, the court of appeals upheld the injunction and returned the case to the lower court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court found that inasmuch as Gold Fields had not demonstrated a likelihood that its U.S. securities law claims would be successful on the merits, those claims did not merit an injunction. The court also ruled that Minorco had failed to demonstrate that its plan to hold separate and sell the assets of Gold Fields posing the possible antitrust problem would provide adequate protection, and so kept the injunction against the tender offer in place. As a result, even though a majority of the Gold Fields shareholders had tendered their shares to Minorco and both British and European Communities regulatory authorities had approved the transaction, Minorco was forced to abandon its tender offer.

Download Full-text

A Place of Recourse: A History of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 1803-2003

American Journal of Legal History ◽

10.2307/30039531 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 47 (3) ◽

pp. 329 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mark Edward Lender ◽

Roberta Sue Alexander

Keyword(s):

District Court ◽

Southern District ◽

History Of ◽

The U.S

Download Full-text

United States v. Stuart

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2203382 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 83 (4) ◽

pp. 918-923

Author(s):

Daniel M. Price

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Good Faith ◽

District Court ◽

Criminal Prosecution ◽

Justice Department ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

Canadian Law ◽

History Of ◽

The U.S

In response to a request by Canadian tax authorities under the United States-Canada Double Taxation Convention (Convention), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to obtain U.S. bank records concerning certain accounts of respondents, Canadian citizens whose Canadian tax liability was under investigation. Respondents sought to quash the summonses, arguing that because under 26 U.S.C. §7609(b) the IRS is prohibited by U.S. law from using its summons authority to obtain information about a U.S. taxpayer once a case is referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, and because the tax investigation of respondents was part of a Canadian criminal investigation, the IRS should be precluded from using its summons authority to honor the Canadian request under the Convention. Unsuccessful in the district court, respondents prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that under the “good faith” standard applicable to enforcement of domestic summonses, the IRS may issue a summons pursuant to a Convention request only if it first determines and makes an affirmative statement to the effect that the Canadian investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS. The U.S. Supreme Court (per Brennan, J.) reversed, and held: (1) that if the summons is issued in good faith, it is enforceable regardless of whether the Canadian request is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law; and (2) neither United States law nor anything in the text or the ratification history of the Convention supports the imposition of additional requirements. Justice Kennedy (joined by O’Connor, J.), concurring in part and in the judgment, filed a brief opinion to state his view that it is unnecessary to decide whether Senate preratification materials are authoritative sources for treaty interpretation. Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, wrote separately to oppose the use of such materials in treaty construction.

Download Full-text

The LMO2 oncogene regulates DNA replication in hematopoietic cells

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1073/pnas.1515071113 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 113 (5) ◽

pp. 1393-1398 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Marie-Claude Sincennes ◽

Magali Humbert ◽

Benoît Grondin ◽

Véronique Lisi ◽

Diogo F. T. Veiga ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cell Cycle ◽

Dna Replication ◽

Dna Sequences ◽

Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽

Ectopic Expression ◽

Dna Polymerase Delta ◽

Thymocyte Development ◽

Erythroid Progenitors ◽

Acute Leukemias ◽

Synthetic Dna

Oncogenic transcription factors are commonly activated in acute leukemias and subvert normal gene expression networks to reprogram hematopoietic progenitors into preleukemic stem cells, as exemplified by LIM-only 2 (LMO2) in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL). Whether or not these oncoproteins interfere with other DNA-dependent processes is largely unexplored. Here, we show that LMO2 is recruited to DNA replication origins by interaction with three essential replication enzymes: DNA polymerase delta (POLD1), DNA primase (PRIM1), and minichromosome 6 (MCM6). Furthermore, tethering LMO2 to synthetic DNA sequences is sufficient to transform these sequences into origins of replication. We next addressed the importance of LMO2 in erythroid and thymocyte development, two lineages in which cell cycle and differentiation are tightly coordinated. Lowering LMO2 levels in erythroid progenitors delays G1-S progression and arrests erythropoietin-dependent cell growth while favoring terminal differentiation. Conversely, ectopic expression in thymocytes induces DNA replication and drives these cells into cell cycle, causing differentiation blockade. Our results define a novel role for LMO2 in directly promoting DNA synthesis and G1-S progression.

Download Full-text

Signing, Sectarian Schools, and the Law

Disability Rights and Religious Liberty in Education ◽

10.5622/illinois/9780252043208.003.0006 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 121-151

Author(s):

Bruce J. Dierenfield ◽

David A. Gerber

Keyword(s):

Federal District ◽

Catholic School ◽

Establishment Clause ◽

District Court ◽

Parochial School ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

Government Aid ◽

Sectarian Schools ◽

Civil Libertarian ◽

The U.S

This chapter examines and analyzes the five-year journey of Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) from the federal district court in Tucson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. William Bentley Ball, the Zobrests’ attorney, and John Richardson, the school district’s attorney, clashed over whether the Establishment Clause permitted any government aid to a Catholic school. Many religious and civil libertarian groups—but just one national deaf association—filed arguments to sway the court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the majority decision favoring the Zobrests, misunderstood the complicated function of a sign language interpreter to permit what he regarded as incidental parochial school aid. Rehnquist maintained the aid was permissible because the plaintiffs and their deaf son were its main beneficiaries.

Download Full-text

Nomination to the U.S. District Court of Vince Girdhari Chhabria

Asian American Society: An Encyclopedia ◽

10.4135/9781452281889.n530 ◽

2014 ◽

Keyword(s):

District Court ◽

The U.S

Download Full-text

Myriad post-Myriad

Science and Public Policy ◽

10.1093/scipol/scaa008 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Shubha Ghosh

Keyword(s):

Dna Sequences ◽

Negative Impact ◽

Genetic Data ◽

Brca1 And Brca2 ◽

Minimal Impact ◽

Synthetic Dna ◽

The Us ◽

Myriad Genetics ◽

Polymerase Chain ◽

Polymerase Chain Reaction Primers

Abstract The US Supreme Court’s 2013 decision, holding patent claims to isolated, endogenous deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequences to be invalid, seemed to have limited negative impact on Myriad Genetics whose patent on the isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were at the heart of the case. This article explains this minimal impact in two ways. First, the Court’s decision still left synthetic DNA patentable, leaving that as a fruitful source for commercialization by companies like Myriad. The Federal Circuit’s subsequent decision, however, invalidated Myriad’s product claims over the synthetic polymerase chain reaction primers based on the isolated DNA sequences. Second, the Court’s decision did not address the patentability of mined genetic data for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. This field of genetic data mining is precisely where Myriad has moved in its patenting activity.

Download Full-text