Myriad Genetics Loses Again: Court Refuses To Grant Preliminary Injunction Against Rival Genetic Testing Company

from the battling-cancer dept

In June last year we reported on a major ruling from the Supreme Court, which effectively said that you can't patent genes. That ripped a huge hole in Myriad Genetics' monopoly on testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that are linked to breast cancer, but that didn't stop it suing some of the new entrants to this market. In particular, it asked a federal judge in Utah to order one of them, Ambry Genetics, to stop providing its gene testing service for those genes. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief opposing Myriad's motion, together with a number of other organizations. Here's the latest development in the case:

Yesterday, a federal district court judge in Utah rejected Myriad's motion. Judge Shelby found that Myriad had failed to establish that it was likely to win its lawsuit against Ambry, because there are substantial questions about whether Myriad's patent claims improperly monopolize products of nature, laws of nature, and abstract ideas.

While Myriad's lawsuits can proceed -- for now -- patients continue to have the right to choose other BRCA genetic testing providers. They can obtain a second opinion before making life-changing medical decisions. And they can decide which laboratory will have their data.
That last point is important. As the ACLU explains:
Myriad has used its patents over the genes to create the largest database in the world about BRCA genetic mutations and their medical significance and refuses to share that information with the scientific community.
That underlines another huge problem with gene patents: they allow monopoly-holders to lock up key medical information that could have been used by researchers around the world to advance knowledge and come up with new treatments. Far from accelerating innovation, as apologists for patents like to claim, they throw huge roadblocks in its way. It's yet another reason why the Supreme Court's decision to strike down gene patents should be celebrated.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: brca, brca1, brca2, dna, gene patents, genetic testing, injunction, patents
Companies: ambry, myriad genetics


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    btrussell (profile), 19 Mar 2014 @ 5:54am

    Re: Re:

    Do you know why corporations were formed?

    "A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders,[1] and may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not-for-profit business."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

    You needed it defined as a "personhood" to understand what is meant here? It protects the shareholders. You cannot sue them. You sue the corporation and the shareholders assets are safe, they still have a home with a full six-car garage. Employees can say they were just doing their job, following orders. These people aren't responsible, the corporation did it.

    P.S. Separate legal entity did not come about after "corporate personhood," it was the original intent. Did someone take it out of context so the courts had to supply new definitions and clarity?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.