The Surpreme Court Has The Blue Print And Road Block To Unlock A Breast Cancer Cure:
Washington, DC ( AP ) , April 12, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A Breast Cancer Cure in our lifetime is in the hands of the United States Surpreme Court. It is going to take all of the scientist and Medical Communities to develop a cure. Having one company Myriad own the primary genes, 
BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to accomplish a cure is like saying Ford is the only company that can make automobiles. Barron’s Medical Journal says that it is as simple as the law of supply and demand the more companies that can develop a cure with our Mothers, Sisters, and Daughters genes, the faster a complete cure will be developed. To help you understand the issues here is some background on the matter.
Barron’s Medical Journal reports that the Surpreme Court remanded the case of The Association for Molecular Pathology, et al., v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al (Docket No. 11-725) to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The question is should one company have all the rights
to a gene that is the core of breast cancer ? Docket No. 11-725 is the Surpreme Court case that concerns the patents held on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are both closely associated with the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The genes were isolated by Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah, and Myriad manufactures the only test currently available to identify the two genes. In July 2011, the appellate court ruled 2-to-1 in favor of Myriad, stating that the genes could be patented because they did not occur in isolation in nature.
Brought To You By The Houston Black Real Estate Association
This reversed a decision made by a US District Court in New York in March 2010 that stated that Myriad could not patent the genes. The Surpreme Court made a decision regarding patents on molecular testing that prompted the nation’s highest judicial authority to ask the appellate court to reconsider its previous decision with regard to Myriad: The case of Mayo Collaborative Services, Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
(Docket No. 10-1150) concerned a blood test used to identify thiopurine metabolites formed when the body breaks down thiopurine drugs taken by patients with gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal autoimmune diseases to determine whether a prescribing physician should raise or lower the drug dosage. Breast Cancer Patients Can Now Benefit From Every Scientist In The World Working On A Cure Sam Houston Our Science 
NoteBook is BRCA1 BRCA2 Compliant Sam Houston is clear to sale it's Science NoteBook to Breast Cancer Doctors. The Surpreme Court has ruled on Myriad Genetics Inc. case. The is patent protection, Patent protection is important for companies that are focusing on personalized medicine, including Sam Houston Biotech Myriad Genetics Inc. (MYGN) and Novartis AG. (NOVN) The field involves determining whether a patient is genetically susceptible to a particular disease or would be especially responsive to certain medicine. On 26 March, the US SurpremeCourt handed down a short summary disposition as the latest installment in a long-running case that questions whether human genes can be patented.
The Court simply vacated the 2011 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which upheld Myriad Genetics Inc's (Myriad) patents relating to the BRCA genes, and sent the case back down to the CAFC for rehearing in light of a Surpreme Court case on patenting laws of nature, handed down just six days earlier (Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories, 10-1150) (Mayo). The History of. Case 10-1150 In 2009, the Association for Molecular Pathology together with many others filed suit against Myriad, the US Patent Office, and others, seeking to overturn 15 claims in seven of Myriad’s patents. The patents at issue relate to both process claims (method for detecting increased risk of breast cancer) and composition-of-matter claims (the BRCA1 and BRCA2 isolated genes). In 2010, Judge Sweet in the US District Court (SDNY) held that both the genes and methods were not patentable. In relation to the genes, they were not ‘markedly different’ to naturally occurring genes.
Myriad’s argument that the technique of purifying the genes rendered the compounds patent-eligible was rejected. Judge Sweet noted the dual nature of genes as both compositions of matter and carriers of information. The fact that, even after the purification process, the information provided by the genes remained the same meant that they were patentable products of nature. As for the method claims, Judge Sweet relied on a ‘machine or transfer’ (MOT) test developed in an earlier CAFC decision (Bilski v Kappos) to conclude that the claims to the process of analysis or comparison in the technique were no more than ‘abstract mental processes’. However, the Surpreme Court later qualified 
the CAFC opinion, leaving this aspect of Judge Sweet’s opinion particularly vulnerable to appeal. Unsurprisingly Myriad appealed, and last year the CAFC overturned parts of the first instance decision, finding that because isolated DNA had been ‘cleaved’ (covalent bonds in its backbone chemically severed) it was rendered a different molecule, just a fraction of a native DNA molecule, and thus patentable. However, on the method claims the CAFC largely upheld the prior decision, invalidating all claims except one on the basis that they were merely abstract mental processes. The surviving method claim was directed to a method for screening potential cancer therapies. This claim included a transformative step, satisfying the MOT test. How much guidance the Mayo case can provide for the CAFC, given that it deals with process patenting, rather than compositions of matter.
In Mayo, the Surpreme Court found that a process for determining dosages for a person with auto-immune disease was patentable. The relationship between certain concentrations of metabolites in a patient’s blood and the likelihood of under or over-dosing were merely laws of nature. Accordingly, the claimed processes were unpatentable unless they contained steps that genuinely applied the laws of nature, rather than merely constituting an attempt to monopolies the natural correlation itself. The additional steps in the claims did not transform an patentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application. Myriad will now have to wait for the CAFC to consider and apply the ramifications of Mayo, and decide on the composition of matter issue – probably late 2012 or 2013. For this reason, some analysis’s are predicting the CAFC may well uphold Myriad’s composition claims. In any event, Myriad has a suite of other patents protecting its BRAC Analysis technique, which would likely deter others from its use, at least in the short term. So Myriad remains bullish on the issue, stating that it will ‘vigorously defend’ its claims because of their ‘great importance to the medical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other commercial industries’.
Life Science Companies are free to find A Cure for Breast Cancer using Genomics.
April 15, 2013: The United States Surpreme Court ....... "Punted To The End Of The Summer " .... What Happen: Myriad Genetics lawyer Gregory A. Castanias argued that justices could think about their invention like a baseball bat. "A baseball bat doesn't exist until it's isolated from a tree. But that's still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat," he said. Chief Justice Roberts did not accept that argument ........ In Barron's Medical Journal Opinion .........Giving Myriad Genetics Time to accept that the fact That In the Metaphor ..." Is It Natural Or Organic " BRCA 1 & 2 are Natural And Can Not Be Patent ...... They will Phrase off a Piece of the process and make that portion Patentable.
No comments:
Post a Comment