The evolving role of biomarker patents in personalized medicine

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 127-129

  Kesselheim, A S ^a   Shiu, N ^a  

^a Department of Medicine ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; JURISPRUDENCE; PATENTS AS TOPIC; PRIVATE SECTOR; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84893765870     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2013.185     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Brief of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) (No. 10-1150) (November 2011).
2. PerkinElmer v. Intema, 496 Fed. Appx. 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3. Hennekens, C.H. & Ridker, P. Systemic inflammatory markers as diagnostic tools in the prevention of atherosclerotic diseases and as tools to aid in the selection of agents to be used for the prevention and treatment of atherosclerotic disease. US patent 6,040,147 (21 March 2000).
4. Man, A. & Spector, N.L. Predictive biomarkers in cancer therapy. US patent 7,794,960 (14 September 2010).
5. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, 548 US 124 (2006) (per curiam).
6. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 566 U.S. -(20 March 2012).
7. Fox, J.L. Industry reels as Prometheus falls and Myriad faces further reviews. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 373-374 (2012).
8. Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
9. Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
10. Kesselheim, A.S. & Karlawish, J. Biomarkers unbound -The Supreme Court's ruling on diagnostic-test patents. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 2338-2340 (2012).