The curious incident of the supreme court in Myriad Genetics

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 505-542

  Burk, Dan L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922478606     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (172)

1. 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2117-18 (2013).
2. A. CONAN DOYLE, Silver Blaze, in MEMOIRS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES 1, 22 (New York, A.L. Burt Co. 1894).
3. See Dan L. Burk, Are Human Genes Patentable?, 44 INT'L REV. INTELL. PROP. & COMPETITION L. 747, 749 (2013).
4. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 653 F.3d 1329, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
5. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1794 (2012)
6. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct 2107, 2116 (2013).
7. See Burk, supra note 7, at 749.
8. See, e.g., Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Prometheus Rebound: Diagnostics, Nature, and Mathematical Algorithms, 122 YALE L.J. ONLINE 341, 341-42 (2013)
9. Myr Katherine J. Strandburg, Much Ado About Preemption, 50 HOUS. L. REV. 563, 610-14 (2012).
10. Arti K. Rai, Biomedical Patents at the Supreme Court: A Path Forward, 66 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 111 (2013).
11. JAMES D. WATSON ET AL., MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE GENE 601, 749 (6th ed. 2008).
12. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2119-20.
13. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 689 F.3d 1303, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
14. aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).
15. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2118.
16. See, e.g., DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, MODERN AMERICAN REMEDIES 339-41 (4th ed. 2012)
17. pointing out the clear doctrinal errors in Thomas's opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 2006
18. Dan L. Burk, Legal Constraint of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, 6 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 335, 351-53 (2004)
19. pointing out the clear doctrinal errors in Thomas's opinion in J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 2001
20. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2118.
21. See Dan L. Burk, The Problem of Process in Biotechnology, 43 HOUS. L. REV. 561, 588 (2006).
22. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2119.
23. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).
24. available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo-guidance.pdf.
25. See Peter E. Nielsen et al., Sequence-Selective Recognition of DNA by Strand Displacement with a Thymine-Substituted Polyamide, 254 SCI. 1497 (1991);
26. Pernilla Wittung et al., DNA-like Double Helix Formed by Peptide Nucleic Acid, 368 NATURE 561 (1994).
27. See Nielsen et al., supra note 30, at 1497.
28. European Patent Convention, Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, Rule 27(a), Oct. 5, 1973, 1065 U.N.T.S. 199 (as amended Dec. 9, 2004), available at http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/r27.html.
29. See, e.g., Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 739 (2002).
30. 1 Kings 3:16-28.
31. See Dan L. Burk, What Media Missed About Gene Patent Case, CNN (June 14, 2013, 10:09 AM), http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/14/what-media-missed-about-gene-patent-case/.
32. See Dan L. Burk, Biotechnology and Patent Law: Fitting Innovation to the Procrustean Bed, 17 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH L.J. 1, 30 (1991).
33. In re Chakrabarty, 571 F.2d 40, 42 (C.C.P.A. 1978).
34. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 313.
35. See Dan Burk, The "Runcible" Product of Nature Doctrine, SCOTUSBLOG (Feb. 4, 2013, 3:50 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/the-runcible-product-of-nature-doctrine/.
36. 333 U.S. 127 (1948).
37. See Retcon, DICTIONARY.COM, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retcon?s=t (last visited Nov. 15, 2014).
38. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013).
39. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012)).
40. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980)
41. See Strandburg, supra note 13, at 586-614.
42. Phenomenon, DICTIONARY.COM, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenomenon?s=t (last visited Nov. 15, 2014).
43. 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978).
44. Myriad, 133 S. Ct at 2116
45. See Felix S. Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach, 35 COLUM. L. REV. 809, 815 (1935);
46. Michael J. Madison, Law as Design: Objects, Concepts, and Digital Things, 56 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 381, 401 (2005).
47. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).
48. Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1931).
49. Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130.
50. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012).
51. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 689 F.3d 1303, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
52. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013).
53. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology, 689 F.3d at 1330.
54. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181, 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
55. Burk, supra note 22, at 585-88.
56. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology, 702 F. Supp. 2d at 229.
57. Burk, supra note 22, at 587.
58. 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
59. See Bernard Knox, Introduction to HOMER, THE ODYSSEY 3, 3 (Robert Fagles trans., 1996) .
60. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72-73.
61. Dan L. Burk, Patent Law's Problem Children: Software and Biotechnology in Transatlantic Context, in PATENT LAW IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 187, 197 (Ruth L. Okediji & Margo A. Bag ley eds., 2014);
62. see also Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Inherency, 47 WM. & MARY L. REV. 371, 406 (2005).
63. See, e.g., Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 477 U.S. 303, 309 (1980).
64. See PETER ATKINS & JULIO DE PAULA, ATKINS' PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY 244-72 (8th ed. 2006).
65. See J. REX GOATES ET AL., GENERAL CHEMISTRY 377 (1981).
66. See J. BRONOWSKI, SCIENCE AND HUMAN VALUES 12 (rev. ed. 1965).
67. See MICHAEL GUILLEN, BRIDGES TO INFINITY 110 (1983).
68. Karen Barad, Agential Realism: Feminist Interventions in Understanding Scientific Practices, in THE SCIENCE STUDIES READER 1, 2 (Mario Biagioli ed., 1999).
69. See Karen Barad, Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter, 28 SIGNS 801, 803 (2003)
70. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
71. See ATKINS & DE PAULA, supra note 81, at 240.
72. See J. BRONOWSKI, THE COMMON SENSE OF SCIENCE 37-38 (1951).
73. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980)
74. (quoting S. REP. NO. 82-1979, at 5 (1952)
75. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293.
76. In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 960 (C.C.P.A. 1979).
77. 35 U.S.C. § 102 (2012).
78. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 189 (1981).
79. LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK at fit 1, stanza 2 (Chatto & Windus 1941) (1876).
80. 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
81. 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
82. 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
83. 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
84. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).
85. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2013).
86. See Rochelle C. Dreyfuss & James P. Evans, From Bilski Back to Benson : Preemption, Inventing Around, and the Case of Genetic Diagnostics, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1349, 1351-52 (2011).
87. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611-12.
88. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
89. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).
90. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
91. Cf. DOUGLAS ADAMS, SO LONG, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH (1984)
92. See Dan L. Burk, Reflections in a Darkling Glass: A Comparative Contemplation of the Harvard College Decision, 39 CAN. BUS. L.J. 219, 229 (2003)
93. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309
94. (quoting S. REP. NO. 82-1979, at 5 (1952)).
95. See Dan L. Burk, Edifying Thoughts of a Patent Watcher: The Nature of DNA, 60 UCLA L. REV. DISCOURSE 92, 94 (2013).
96. In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1979).
97. In re Bergy, 563 F.2d 1031, 1032-34 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
98. See Kara W. Swanson, Patents, Politics and Abortion, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN CONTEXT (William T. Gallagher & Debora J. Halbert eds., forthcoming), (manuscript at 20), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2337062.
99. See In re Bergy, 596 F.2d at 955.
100. 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
101. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1794 (2012).
102. In re Bergy, 596 F.2d at 964-65.
103. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 189 n.12 (1981).
104. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 689 F.3d 1303, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
105. aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).
106. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 189 n.12;
107. see also Dan L. Burk, Anticipating Patentable Subject Matter, 65 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 109, 112-13 (2013)
108. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 2359, 2360 (2014)
109. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978));
110. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1291, 1293, 1294, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1303 (2012)
111. (citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 590).
112. See Dan L. Burk, Patenting Speech, 79 TEX. L. REV. 99, 137-46 (2000).
113. Compare Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1296
114. (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610 (2010))).
115. Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), art. 52(2), Oct. 5, 1973, 1065 U.N.T.S. 199 (as amended Jan. 1, 2006), available at http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ar52.html.
116. See Estimating Sales Activity/Duns Licensing Assocs., Case T 154/04, 2/2008 O.J. E.P.O. 46, 61, 64 (Tech. Bd. App. 2006), available at http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj008/02-08/02-0468.pdf
117. See Rosa Maria Ballardini, Software Patents in Europe: The Technical Requirement Dilemma, 3 J. INTELL. PROP. L. & PRAC. 563, 567-68 (2008).
118. Erika Ellyne, Patent Eligibility-the 'Sick-Man' of Patent Law, in ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE 139, 153-54 (Dana Beldiman ed., 2013).
119. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).
120. See JOE RAPOSO & JEFFREY MOSS, THE SESAME STREET SONGBOOK 40 (1971).
121. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
122. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1877).
123. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604-05 (2010).
124. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605-06.
125. Margaret Jane Radin, Information Tangibility, in ECONOMICS, LAW AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 395, 396-418 (Ove Granstrande ed., 2003)
126. Jean-Francois Blanchette, A Material History of Bits, 62 J. AM. SOC'Y INFO. SCI. & TECH. 1042, 1042 (2011).
127. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972).
128. Philip E. Agre, Internet Research: For and Against, in 1 INTERNET RESEARCH ANNUAL: SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNET RESEARCHERS CONFERENCES 2000-2002, at 25, 27 (Mia Consalvo et al. eds., 2004).
129. See Pamela Samuelson et al., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2308, 2316 (1994).
130. See Dan L. Burk, Method and Madness in Copyright Law, 2007 UTAH L. REV. 587, 609-10.
131. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (2012).
132. Julie E. Cohen & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 9 (2001).
133. Cf. Amgen, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 902 F.2d 1532, 1537-38 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
134. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
135. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 683 F.3d 1329, 1355-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
136. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181, 233-37 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
137. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology, 702 F. Supp. 2d at 237.
138. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 689 F.3d 1303, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
139. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2119-20 (2013).
140. See STEVEN VOGEL, COMPARATIVE BIOMECHANICS 455 (2d ed. 2013).
141. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)
142. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1301 (2012)).
143. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013).
144. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 (1981);
145. see Mayo, 132 S. Ct at 1298
146. quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92
147. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294
148. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593
149. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192.
150. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014).
151. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60.
152. DAN L. BURK & MARK A. LEMLEY, THE PATENT CRISIS AND HOW THE COURTS CAN SOLVE IT 95 (2009)
153. (quoting Pamela Samuelson & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, 111 YALE L.J. 1575, 1581 (2002)).
154. See Mark A. Lemley et al., Life After Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315, 1328-29 (2011).
155. See Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2005);
156. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
157. Cf. O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 124 (1854).
158. The Morse case is often cited, including by the Court in Mayo, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
159. see also Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)
160. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (2012).
161. Contra Dennis Crouch & Robert P. Merges, Operating Efficiently Post-Bilski by Ordering Patent Doctrine Decision-Making, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1673, 1674 (2010);
162. Cf. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Re-Examining the Role of Patents in Appropriating the Value of DNA Sequences, 49 EMORY L.J. 783, 785 (2000) .
163. Cf. DOUGLAS ADAMS, THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY 76 (1979).
164. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2119 n.8 (2013) .
165. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).
166. See, e.g., Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
167. Abbott Labs. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
168. See Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116-18 (2013).
169. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354-55 (2014).
170. Ted Sichelman, Funk Forward, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AT THE EDGE 361, 377-80 (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss & Jane C. Ginsburg eds., 2014) ;
171. see also Jacob S. Sherkow, The Natural Complexity of Patent Eligibility, 99 IOWA L. REV. 1137, 1180 (2014).
172. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60.