Talk:Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

Untitled
Other articles at various stages of the lawsuit, useful if someone wants to add commentary from the parties, etc.:


 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30719222/
 * http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/12/us.genes.lawsuit/index.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html
 * http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/can-aclu-expect-win-its-brca-gene-patenting-case-it-even-gets-trial
 * http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2010/Apr10.pdf
 * http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/neuro/aclu-v-gene-patents
 * http://www.bio-itworld.com/comment/2009/07/06/ACLU-lawsuit.html
 * http://www.genome.gov/Pages/About/NACHGR/May2010AgendaDocuments/V2GenePatentingCouncil2010.ppt (has most background)

The link https://supreme.justia.com/us/569/___/case.html appears to be broken David Blandford (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I wrote all the above, (you, crazy little User:SineBot, stop signing every line!) Tijfo098 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Implications
I would really like too see an implications section that explains what this means to medicine, research, and Myriad. On the surface, it seems that doctors can perform a full DNA sequence on a patient and check for the genes without infringement. But, given that Myriad seems to be happy with the result, I doubt this is true. Can someone informed please explain, this is all very confusing to us laypeople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.13.242 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The August 16 decision could use some explanation from wp:secondary sources, no doubt. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * meant to answer this directly a while ago. First - how is the BRACanalysis test done?  It uses PCR.  Myriad has claims on PCR primers (the primers themselves) that were never challenged in this litigation.  They are broad claims, so no matter what happens, no one is going to be able to offer the BRACanalysis test until those patents expire.  The whole litigation was kind of stupid, from my point of view, in this respect.   The litigation challenged three kinds of claims: 1) claims to isolated DNA for the normal BRCA genes, and isolated DNA for the mutated genes.  2) Methods to diagnose liklihood of breast cancer by looking for those mutations (pretty broad, not method specific).  3) methods to screen drugs that could target cancers with BRCA mutations.   Now to directly answer your question, if somebody does whole genome sequencing - just that - and doesn't make any judgement about the results (in other words, something like 23 and me, but without any anaylsis), they would not infringe 1 (they never isolate the gene); they would not infringe 2 because they are making no judgement;  they would not infringe 3 because they are not screening drugs.   IF the company also said, "oh you have a mutation in BRCA, you are likely to get breast or ovarian cancer", then they would infringe claim 2.  However, as the article states, because of the Bilksi and Prometheus decisions (NOT this one - -this one just applied those two decisions) - the broad diagnostic claims are dead.   So now, somebody could whole-genome sequence you (not using PCR primers) and find the mutation and say "you are likely to get breast cancer" and not infringe anything.  There you go.Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Reactions section
I think this section, while usually helpful in other case law articles, is rather hopeless here due to the numerous stages and reversals in the litigation. Reactions from the parties and pundits should instead be added to each stage of the litigation. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, blow by blow reactions are ephemeral... what will matter is the final outcome and there should indeed be a final "reactions" section once the supreme court has acted. If you want to add reactions to each stage, again from my point of view, please feel free.  As I wrote in the reactions section, I think that from the point of view the plaintiffs the essential battle was won in Prometheus - they are now going for the icing, too. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Section
I've tagged this section at lacking NPOV because the last paragraph operates off the assumption that patents in some how benefit patients or research at all. I don't have the time to go into all the arguments right now, (I will) but the gist of my point is my, contrary to popular consensus, assertation that intellectual monopoly is a net slower down of innovation due to its prevention of others' innovation. While temporary government granted monopoly may cause some incentive to innovation, this incentive is more than lost in the detraction it causes to other innovators.Huckfinne (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but your personal opinion is no basis for putting a POV tag on a section of reactions. Please do not use Talk or tags to air your personal opinions. For now I am taking the tag off -- please feel free to put it back if/when you have a criticism that the section is POV based on Wiki's policies - that it does not accurately record various sides' (there are not just two) reactions in an unbiased way, with reliable sources. Better, please edit the section to present a more unbiased view of actual, published reactions, with verifiable sources. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(copied from huckfinne's talk page) "which rendered most diagnostic claims unpatentable, which will make it difficult for Myriad's business model to work going forward - difficult for R&D driven business and investors, potentially bad for patients" from the third paragraph of that section is clearly not NPOV. It has wikipedia endorsing the incorrect assertion that lack of intellectual monopoly is bad for R&D driven business and potentially patients. This just isn't true. My opinion, that intellectual monopoly does not promote innovation, is actually a pretty well established fact, but, since it runs contrary to the conventional wisdom, I'm willing to be softer about it in terms of wikipedia. You statement "This is -- I am curious why you think that, if you care to tell me." suggests that you don't agree with me. Our not agreeing helps prove my point regarding NPOV. Thus, I request that you restore my NPOV tag. Perhaps someone else can comment?Huckfinne (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a reactions section, and there are reactions from the "conventional wisdom" perspective which are discussed, with proper citation.  There are also reactions from the perspective that overthrowing patent rights on diagnostics is a good thing, which are discussed and cited.   If there are other reactions that you want to be represented in the Reactions section, please feel free to add them, with citations.   It is not POV to represent reactions that people made.   I added a clarification that Myriad's business model depends on patents - that is described with references in the Background section and is also supported by the two references.  That is a fact, not opinion.  And as mentioned, the Prometheus v Mayo decision means it will be difficult for others to follow that business model. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of Watson's position
From the article:
 * Many opponents of gene patents (including James Watson, one of the solvers of the structure of DNA) argue that §101 of Title 35 of the United States Code clearly allows for it, and that if DNA should be excluded from patent eligibility on the basis that it conveys special genetic information, then that should be done through an act of Congress, not under courts' powers to interpret that law.

The reference shows that only one person (the author of the provided reference) has this view. Sancho 05:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * good call that watson's views were mischaracterized. Not responding to your other editorializing comments, which are not appropriate here.  fixed the description of Watsons' views.Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What editorializing comments? I was just saying that reference 37 only showed that the author of reference 37 held the view that the change should be done through an act of Congress and didn't provide support for our claim that "many opponents" believe that. But even in the revised sentence, reference 37 is a poor reference to support our use of "many opponents" in the sentence. We can probably find a better reference for that phrase. Sancho 22:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * you are right, there was no editorializing in your comment. It was dead on and all good. Sorry about that. I see your point and have made further changes. What do you think?  btw if it still not addressing your point feel free to take a shot at fixing it.  Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks better now. I just made a couple of small spelling and structure changes. Sancho 23:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Handling "2nd certiorari petition"?
Hey, Quick question from someone who knows little about turning court cases into Wikipedia articles. When a case like this one goes from Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, when do we update all the infobox info? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Concurrent opinion
It says that the concurring opinion agrees with the majority opinion "except Part I–A". So what is Part I-A? Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It has to with the explanation of the science, which he did not understand: "I join the judgment of the Court," he wrote, "except [the portions] going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief." Helen (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

is becomes was
(posting this just because I wasn't sure if this would be an issue, and it was so small a change in terms of text disturbed it might have been missed) I changed "is a case" to "was a case" in the lead. This seems to be the accepted reference to cases in which decisions have been reached. (e.g. Kelo v. City of New London, among others I checked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.238 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

404
The URL linked in the very first sentence is broken in some way (I get Justia's "page not found" screen). DS (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's working fine for me, in Australia when it is 0135 in NY and DC - maybe the site was overloaded when you tried. --Wikiain (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

cDNA does occur in nature
The supremes got the facts wrong. Complementary DNA does occur in nature &mdash; on the opposite strand of the helix. See DNA. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The term "cDNA" is used to describe constructs created by human activity that contain only exons - the "pure" gene, with the introns removed.  It is complementary to mRNA - see the Complementary DNA article.  People started making these in order to clone genes and put them into bacterial cells in order to make lots of the protein - historically, first so the protein could be studied, then so that the protein could be manufactured. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To Jytdog: Thank you for clarifying that. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

BracAnalysis using cDNA?
Does Myriad's BRACAnalysis test use cDNA at all? From Myriad's technical description, I gather that it doesn't: they specifically talk about "genomic DNA" once, never about "cDNA", and they talk about sequencing parts of flanking introns, which wouldn't be present in cDNA. If I'm right, then what is the significance of their cDNA patents? AxelBoldt (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsure what the point of your question is. Myriad's broad diagnostic claims were struck down in earlier cases.  I do not believe that Myriad ever had cDNA claims.  Myriad has had -- and still has, as these claims were never challenged, claims to primers for PCR, which are pretty broad and can be used to stop anyone offering PCR-based tests.  Because Myriad's diagnostic claims were struck down earlier (under Bilski and Prometheus), anybody doing a diagnostic from a full-genome-sequencing test would no longer infringe.  I hope that is helpful. cDNA is not helpful in diagnostics - it is useful in research and in manufacturing proteins. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Myriad holds BRCA cDNA patents, and that these were specifically upheld by the court. At least that's what Myriad says in their press release. I'm just trying to understand what the significance of these valid cDNA patents is. From your answer I gather that they can only be used to protect certain research and synthesis methods, but not diagnostic tests. Even their press release doesn't explicitly state that cDNA patents are used to protect their diagnostic tests, and their BRACAnalysis technical description doesn't mention cDNA either, so I guess I have my answer. Thanks! AxelBoldt (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:AxelBoldt - When Myriad was founded, it also considered becoming a drug discovery company; some of the claims that were originally challenged (and that were upheld) cover drug discovery methods. The cDNA claims would have been relevant to that activity, since the claims would provide Myriad with the ability to exclude others from using the cDNA to make proteins to do drug discovery studies with.   Myriad ended up not going too far down that road.  I am guessing that it is because the mutations in BRCA make it dysfunctional, and it is very very hard to create drugs that make bad proteins good again (it is much easier to make drugs that stop the activity of over-active proteins -- it easier to destroy than to build, as it were).  As far as I know Myriad has never tried enforcing the cDNA claims against anybody. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Order of lead
The lead, as it now currently stands, describes the dispute in one paragraph, describes the flow of court cases culiminating in the Supreme Court decision, and then discusses what had been at stake in a final paragraph. This is good enclylopedic style that will still make sense 5 years from now. Putting the Supreme Court decision last is a WP:RECENTISM approach that makes this more into a news article than an encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog: My thought is that because this is an article about a specific Supreme Court decision, the decision itself is the "bottom line," so to speak, and that the very brief summary of the decision makes more sense at the very end of the lead section than where it was located before my edits. It makes just as much sense to show it that way as to show it the other way, and either way would "still make sense 5 years from now." I also don't follow the reference to "recentism"; again, this is an article about a specific court case, so emphasizing the decision itself by stating (or re-stating) the decision at the end of the lead doesn't seem to me to be a case of "recentism."


 * Also, I would argue that the movement of that very brief description of the decision to the last paragraph of the lead hardly transforms the article into one that is more of a "news article" style than an "encyclopedia article" in style.


 * In short, I think you're overstating your case.


 * However, the bottom line is that my approach is (in my view) only slightly better than your approach for the lead -- which of course means that yours is very good as well! Famspear (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying! I don't think the article is only about the Supreme Court decision - I think it is about the whole series of cases (including earlier SCOTUS actions) that culminated in the SCOTUS  decision on a subset of the originally challenged claims, which is why I think it should be structured as I have suggested.  But  you are right it is not a big deal which way it goes, I just wanted to discuss it.  You can change it to your way if you like.   Thank you for the civil discussion!! Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I would leave it the way you have it. Famspear (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization
This article needs to be reorganized to put much stronger emphasis on the Supreme Court opinions. The lower court proceedings are secondary at this point and should be shortened and consolidated. Compare to articles about other Supreme Court cases. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What's happening in Australia?
Article talks about 2013 court case ... no update(s)? 66.81.252.240 (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number   5  7  15:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. → Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. – Return article to the previously used name. The abbreviated party name is not readable. The slip opinion spells out "Association". Abbreviation to "Ass'n" is only a practice that is used in legal citations. Leave a link from "Ass'n ..." to here. Glrx (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, per MOS:LAW. This is primarily a legal article, as it is about a SCOTUS case. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. MOSLAW is only a guideline; it also states, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." There are more Google hits for "Association ..." (18,900) than "Ass'n ..." (3,160). The text in the article doesn't even use "Ass'n": see bolded part in first paragraph (that should reflect the title) and the infobox on the right. Reference 7's lower court case uses "Association". The current article's Supreme Court Decision also does that citation with "Association" (SC decision, page 2, stating "See generally Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181, 192–211 (SDNY 2010).") . Somebody better scold the Supreme Court for not following the dreaded and bloated prescriptions of the Bluebook. See also Cornell summary that says words such as "Association" are not abbreviated when used in text if they start the party's name: "When the case is being referred to in a sentence of the text itself rather than simply as a citation only the words starred [*] in the table below should be abbreviated, and then only when not at the beginning of a party's name." Association is at the beginning of the party's name. The article title is not a full-blown citation because it doesn't have the reporter and other info. SCOTUSBlog uses "Association". Glrx (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313090714/http://nysbar.com/blogs/healthlaw/2010/03/brca12_patents_ruled_invalid_i.html to http://nysbar.com/blogs/healthlaw/2010/03/brca12_patents_ruled_invalid_i.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419115742/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2010/03/29/in-surprise-ruling-court-declares-two-gene-patents-invalid.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2010/03/29/in-surprise-ruling-court-declares-two-gene-patents-invalid.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)