Twenty Thoughts on Myriad

A very interesting post on the blog "PatentlyO" by IP attorney Dennis Crouch gives the thoughts of twenty of his colleagues, mostly law professors.
Each is asked to comment, with the limitation to a 40 word statement, on the effect of the Myriad decision.  The professors include Gregory Dulin of the University of Baltimore, Jorge Contreras of American University, John Duffy of the University of Virginia, Jeffrey Lefstin of the Unviersity of California, Hastings, David Berry of the University of Michigan, Timothy Holbrook of Emory University, Mark Lemley of Stanford University, Jonathan Masur of the University of Chicago, Thomas Cotter of the University of Minnesota, Andrew Chin of the University of North Carolina, Christal Sheppard of the University of Nebraska, Eileen Kane of Pennsylvania State University, Dan Burk of the University of California, Irvine, Brenda Simon of Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, and Andrew Torrance of the University of Kansas.  A link to the post follows.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/06/myriad.html

Interview with Randoph Clower, PhD, JD

Below is a link to an interview in Metropolitan Corporate Counsel with Randolph Clower, PhD, JD, a biotech IP attorney in Buffalo, NY.
Why Buffalo?
Starting with a December 2012 announcement that New York State will spend $50 million to build a life-sciences innovation center on the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, the state aims to incubate a biotech cluster in Buffalo, fueled by University at Buffalo innovation, local medical expertise and private investment. 
In the interview Clower distinguishes between Big Pharma and Bio.
However, I would point to pages 65-67 of "Other Peoples Bodies" for a view of Pharma's penetration into the biotech sector.
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/articles/24396/landmark-case-comes-down?goback=%2Egde_36507_member_252351304

AMP Celebrates

Here's a link to the AMP press release (pdf) celebrating the Myriad decision:

http://www.amp.org/about/press_releases/documents/20131306_SCOTUSAMPvMYRIAD.pdf

More Fallout From Myriad

The following is an email exchange between myself and and Dr. Roger Klein.

Dr Klein, MD JD FASC, is associated with the Association for Molecular Pathology, the lead plaintiff in the Myriad gene patenting case decided June 13, 2024.  The exchange took place on Linkin and Outlook email.  To read the post scroll down to the bottom of the post and up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were very pleased with it. Roger On 06/22/13 3:12 PM, Arthur Gershman wrote: -------------------- What is your opinion of the Myriad decision? On 07/24/12 5:37 AM, Arthur Gershman wrote: -------------------- Matthew Dowd, of Wiley Rein. For details please visit my nascent blog: http://koshergoldfish.blogspot.com/ The brief is also on the blog. On 07/24/12 5:21 AM, Roger D. Klein MD, JD, FCAP wrote: -------------------- I was there as well. I haven't yet had an opportunity to read Watson's brief. Who is representing him? Roger

Myried Chuef Eats Crow

Here's what it's like to eat crow by the chief of Myriad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/a-ruling-on-gene-patents.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=0

big BIO on Myriad

Here's big BIO's statement on the Myriad decision.
This statement is posted on an official blog of BIO titled BIOtechNOW.

http://www.biotech-now.org/public-policy/patently-biotech/2013/06/myriad-supreme-court-decision-bios-statement#

The Forward's Take on Myriad

The Jewish Daily Forward's take on the Myriad decision:

http://forward.com/articles/178638/jewish-women-declare-victory-on-supreme-court-brca/

Myriad Fallout

Here's the start of the fallout from the Myriad decision,  Citing the first paragraph of a NYT article and a link to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/opinion/our-genes-their-secrets.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Our Genes, Their Secrets

By ELEONORE PAUWELS

Published: June 18, 2013

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• 

WASHINGTON — THE Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling last Thursday, barring patents on human genes, was a wise and balanced decision that clears away a major barrier to innovation in the areas of biotechnology, drug development and medical diagnostics. But the decision is just a first step toward finding the right balance between protecting legitimate intellectual property and securing an open future for personalized medicine.

Historic Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States has now ruled that claims for human DNA are ineligible for patent.
Here's a link to the decision:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf