Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Was the Myriad decision a 'surgical strike' on isolated DNA patents, or does it have wider impacts?

Nature Biotechnology volume 36, pages 1146–1149 (2018)Cite this article

Five years later, what are the wider impacts of the US Supreme Court's Myriad decision on subject-matter eligibility and patent prosecution for nature-based products beyond isolated DNA?

On 13 June 2013, the US Supreme Court held in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Myriad) that “[a] naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but complementary DNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring”1. A question this immediately called to mind was whether the courts and US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would expand the reach of the Myriad decision beyond DNA to other naturally occurring or nature-based products. And if the reach of Myriad went beyond isolated genomic DNA, what would be the impact for patent prosecution in the biotech industry?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Study results.

References

  1. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).

  2. Schor, G.A., Norviel, V. & Cohen, I.G. Brief for amicus curiae Eric S. Lander in support of neither party http://hdl.handle.net/10161/7590 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gold, R.E., Cook-Deegan, R. & Bubela, T. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 192ed9 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dilenge, T. et al. Brief for amicus curiae The Biotechnology Industry Organization in support of respondents https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-398_resp_amcu_bio.authcheckdam.pdf (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rai, A.K. & Cook-Deegan, R. Science 341, 137–138 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sachs, R. UC Davis Law Rev. 49, 1881–1940 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980).

  8. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 68 S. Ct. 440 (1948).

  9. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  10. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

  11. USPTO. 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-08.2017] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

  12. In Re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333 (2014).

  13. Rai, A.K. & Sherkow, J.S. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 292–294 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sherkow, J.S. & Greely, H.T. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49, 161–182 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Burk, D.L. Notre Dame Law Rev. 90, 505–542 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tallmadge, E.H. Harv. J. Law Technol. 30, 569–600 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Woessner, W.D. in Patents4Life http://www.patents4life.com/2015/04/isolated-natural-products-still-in-purgatory-post-pto-guidance/ (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Luo, C. & Goldstein, J. in Bloomberg BNA – Life Sciences Law & Industry Report https://www.sternekessler.com/sites/default/files/2017-11/Patenting_Purified_Natural_Products.pdf (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1119–1123 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K., Jordan, M. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 820–825 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 325 ALR 100 (2015).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mateo Aboy, Cristina Crespo, Kathleen Liddell, Johnathon Liddicoat and Matthew Jordan are at the Centre for Law, Medicine, and Life Sciences, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,

    Mateo Aboy, Cristina Crespo, Kathleen Liddell, Johnathon Liddicoat & Matthew Jordan

Authors
  1. Mateo Aboy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen Liddell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johnathon Liddicoat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mateo Aboy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text

Supplementary Data and Methods (PDF 633 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K. et al. Was the Myriad decision a 'surgical strike' on isolated DNA patents, or does it have wider impacts?. Nat Biotechnol 36, 1146–1149 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4308

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4308

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing