Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round? / Minssen, Timo; Schwartz, Robert.

In: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. Vol 3, No. 1, 01.2013, p. 70-80.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Minssen, T & Schwartz, R 2013, 'Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round?', Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, vol. Vol 3, no. 1, pp. 70-80.

APA

Minssen, T., & Schwartz, R. (2013). Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round? Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol 3(1), 70-80.

Vancouver

Minssen T, Schwartz R. Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round? Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property. 2013 Jan;Vol 3(1):70-80.

Author

Minssen, Timo ; Schwartz, Robert. / Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round?. In: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property. 2013 ; Vol. Vol 3, No. 1. pp. 70-80.

Bibtex

@article{437c793a179445bbadcf65287d317fb0,
title = "Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round?",
abstract = "In March 2011 the Supreme Court issued its Prometheus opinion and granted certiorari, reversed and remanded Myriad I for consideration in light of Prometheus. In August 2012 the Myriad II decision was issued. The panel in Myriad II repeated most of their separate Myriad I opinions. Myriad d{\'e}j{\`a} vu looked much Myriad I with panel members agreeing that Prometheus did not control the composition of matter claims. The opinions differed on whether composition claims were to be analyzed from a chemical, structural or carrier of information standpoint with respect to laws of nature. The rationales used such rhetorical metaphors as cleaving, baseball bats, magic microscopes, extracted kidneys, slabs of marble or marble statues, the Sistine Chapel, and whether cells were “transformed” molecules or “carriers of information{"}. The differing evaluations of patent-eligibility and the cursory manner in which they addressed the Supreme Court’s GVR mandate may well guarantee a return appearance before the Supreme Court or, at a minimum, en banc review by the Circuit",
keywords = "The Faculty of Law, US patents, gene patents, diagnostic methods, personalized medicine, biotech",
author = "Timo Minssen and Robert Schwartz",
note = "Valideret ud fra tilg{\ae}ngelige oplysninger p{\aa} Edgar online. Yderligere oplysninger i titelfeltet:{"}The Association for Molecular Pathology v U.S.P.T.O., 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012).{"}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "Vol 3",
pages = "70--80",
journal = "Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property",
issn = "2045-9807",
publisher = "Edward Elgar Publishing",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round?

AU - Minssen, Timo

AU - Schwartz, Robert

N1 - Valideret ud fra tilgængelige oplysninger på Edgar online. Yderligere oplysninger i titelfeltet:"The Association for Molecular Pathology v U.S.P.T.O., 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012)."

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - In March 2011 the Supreme Court issued its Prometheus opinion and granted certiorari, reversed and remanded Myriad I for consideration in light of Prometheus. In August 2012 the Myriad II decision was issued. The panel in Myriad II repeated most of their separate Myriad I opinions. Myriad déjà vu looked much Myriad I with panel members agreeing that Prometheus did not control the composition of matter claims. The opinions differed on whether composition claims were to be analyzed from a chemical, structural or carrier of information standpoint with respect to laws of nature. The rationales used such rhetorical metaphors as cleaving, baseball bats, magic microscopes, extracted kidneys, slabs of marble or marble statues, the Sistine Chapel, and whether cells were “transformed” molecules or “carriers of information". The differing evaluations of patent-eligibility and the cursory manner in which they addressed the Supreme Court’s GVR mandate may well guarantee a return appearance before the Supreme Court or, at a minimum, en banc review by the Circuit

AB - In March 2011 the Supreme Court issued its Prometheus opinion and granted certiorari, reversed and remanded Myriad I for consideration in light of Prometheus. In August 2012 the Myriad II decision was issued. The panel in Myriad II repeated most of their separate Myriad I opinions. Myriad déjà vu looked much Myriad I with panel members agreeing that Prometheus did not control the composition of matter claims. The opinions differed on whether composition claims were to be analyzed from a chemical, structural or carrier of information standpoint with respect to laws of nature. The rationales used such rhetorical metaphors as cleaving, baseball bats, magic microscopes, extracted kidneys, slabs of marble or marble statues, the Sistine Chapel, and whether cells were “transformed” molecules or “carriers of information". The differing evaluations of patent-eligibility and the cursory manner in which they addressed the Supreme Court’s GVR mandate may well guarantee a return appearance before the Supreme Court or, at a minimum, en banc review by the Circuit

KW - The Faculty of Law

KW - US patents, gene patents, diagnostic methods, personalized medicine, biotech

M3 - Journal article

VL - Vol 3

SP - 70

EP - 80

JO - Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

JF - Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

SN - 2045-9807

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 40874446