FiledIMAGE / Shutterstock.com
As well as much other debate, the High Court’s decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics has created uncertainty in terms of the patent eligibility of naturally occurring molecules other than DNA, says Tania Obranovich, special counsel at Watermark Intellectual Asset Management.
In the highly anticipated decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics, handed down earlier this month, the High Court of Australia has unanimously held that isolated naturally occurring DNA is not eligible for patent protection. This decision overturned two earlier Federal Court decisions (Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics 2013 and D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics 2014) which had unanimously upheld the patent eligibility of isolated DNA, specifically the isolated BRCA DNA which was the subject of Myriad’s Australian patent number 686004.
This decision has reversed decades of accepted practice in Australia in relation to patent eligibility and although now arguably aligning Australian patent eligibility practice more closely with that of the US, nevertheless sets it at odds with most other jurisdictions, including all of Australia’s major trading partners.
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
Tania Obranovich, Watermark Intellectual Asset Management, DNA, D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics, Australia, cDNA, patent, USPTO, TPP,