[unmei]

But they surely don't have a patent on all cDNA synthesis techniques, especially given that that is a highly generic technique (it should fall under the "obvious from previous art" criteria). So other companies should be able to utilize a cDNA as well so long as they don't simply follow the Myriad protocol?

[berberous]

Yes, that's correct. Also, keep in mind:

"First, the case is only about whether genes are patentable subject matter; that is, are they the kinds of things that are eligible for patent protection under section 101 of the Patent Act, assuming that all other requirements for patentability are met. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gene patents here, every gene patent would still have to pass the tests of novelty (section 102) and nonobviousness (section 103), and to be the subject of an adequately explicit written description (section 112)."

That's taken from this legal genomics blog: http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2013/05/01/some-t...

Highly recommend all of their articles if you are interested in this kind of thing.

[jweese]

I believe they just have a patent on these particular cDNA types, namely cDNA created from BRCA1 or BRCA2, and not on the well-known lab techniques for creating them.

[daughart]

I believe you are correct here.

[tomku]

Their patent isn't on technique ("method" in the ruling), but on the actual cDNA sequence itself. As such, it's specific to the two BRCA genes.

Of course, that just makes it even more ridiculous.

[unmei]

I guess my question is, do they still have a patent on any BRCA1/2 cDNA or only that specifically created according to their method?

[tomku]

According to the ruling, their patent specifies a sequence of nucleotides of cDNA independent of any method used to create them. I read that to mean that any BRCA1 or BRCA2 cDNA that matches that exact sequence would be infringing on Myriad's patent, regardless of how it was created.

[mpyne]

I don't know the details, I only browsed through the front matter/syllabus, and I've certainly not read the patent in question.