Motion to Dismiss Denied in Breast Cancer Case: The USPTO is a Defendant in a Case Challenging the Constitutionality of Patents Granted by the USPTO
By Jake Meyer
November 1, 2009, Judge Sweet of the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. The plaintiffs in the case, which were previously blogged about here, challenge the constitutionality and validity of patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes owned by Myriad. The defendants -- the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Myriad Genetics, and the Directors of the Utah Research Foundation -- moved to dismiss the case for standing and jurisdictional issues. Judge Sweet denied all motions to dismiss, finding there was both standing and jurisdiction.
The inclusion of the USPTO as a defendant in this case is unique to this case, as the USPTO has never been a party to a lawsuit in which the constitutionality of patents issued by the USPTO were brought into question. The USPTO moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (the USPTO also moved to dismiss for lack of standing) arguing that it had a comprehensive statutory scheme in place to redress violations of the Patent Act. However, the cases the USPTO cited involved claims that alleged statutory violations that the Patent Act provided a remedy for. Judge Sweet found that there was no comparable statutory scheme that provided remedies for constitutional violations. Judge Sweet found that there was subject matter jurisdiction over the USPTO citing the novel circumstances of the action, the absence of any remedy provided in the Patent Act, and the importance of the constitutional rights asserted by the plaintiffs.
In his opinion, Judge Sweet also commented on the importance of the issues before the court, stating that:
The challenges to the patents-in-suit raise questions of difficult legal dimensions concerning constitutional protections over the information that serves as our genetic identities and the need to adopt policies that promote scientific innovation in biomedical research.
Judge Sweet’s characterization of genes as "information" and "genetic identities" indicates that he views genes as more than just a physical chemical, which proponents of gene patents often argue. The characterization of genes as "information" gives strength to the plaintiffs' argument that patents on genes patent information and therefore violate First Amendment rights to free speech. The characterization of genes as our "genetic identities" also indicates that he may view human genes as personal and unique to all humans. However, the statement does cut both ways as Judge Sweet also indicates that he will consider the "need to adopt policies to promote scientific innovation in biomedical research." Judge Sweet may ultimately decide that patent protection on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is needed to promote scientific innovation and that these concerns outweigh the concerns of allowing patents on the "information that serves as our genetic identities."
The opinion by Judge Sweet denying the defendants' motion to dismiss allows the case to continue forward. On December 11, Judge Sweet will hold a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in which the plaintiffs asked for invalidation of the patents on the breast cancer gene sequences and the correlations between mutations in the genes and disease. This case will be an interesting one to watch and presents unique and interesting issues involving patent law, constitutional issues and concerns with health care and technology. In fact, the case has all ready resulted in a unique and interesting twist -- the USPTO is a party to a case challenging the constitutionality of patents granted by the USPTO.
This information comports with the brief filed in Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office by ISLAT Director Lori B. Andrews.
How-do-you-do, just needed you to know I have added your site to my Google bookmarks because of your extraordinary blog layout. But seriously, I think your site has one of the freshest theme I've came across. It really helps make reading your blog a lot easier.
Posted by: Consignment | August 12, 2010 at 04:50 PM
The challenges to the patents-in-suit raise questions of difficult legal dimensions concerning constitutional protections over the information that serves as our genetic identities and the need to adopt policies that promote scientific innovation in biomedical research.
Posted by: earthrise credits | October 14, 2010 at 04:00 AM
Love it, love it, love it!*
Posted by: coach outlet stores | October 29, 2010 at 09:49 PM
Let Plato be your friend, and Aristotle, but more let your friend be truth#.
Posted by: Cheap Louis Vuitton | November 05, 2010 at 02:32 AM
*An appreciation of learning, is a study in good faith.
Posted by: fake christian louboutin | November 12, 2010 at 01:33 AM
How long does 2012 it will coming , i don't know what will happen in world ending.
Posted by: Juicy Couture Handbags | November 14, 2010 at 08:26 PM
The African tragedy!
Posted by: Air Jordan | November 15, 2010 at 02:20 AM
This case will be an interesting one to watch and presents unique and interesting issues involving patent law,
Posted by: guild wars 2 gold | November 16, 2010 at 09:27 PM
Make your life more easy take the mortgage loans and all you want.
Posted by: LuzHarmon | November 26, 2010 at 04:06 PM
*People enjoy the characters are not happy.
Posted by: Retro Jordan | December 21, 2010 at 12:28 AM
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Sounds like a monumental case.
Posted by: Ditech Home Loan | January 17, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Law cases can be rather complicated and take an exceedingly long time. I an curious to find out how the judge ruled.
Posted by: Ice Coolers | January 17, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Patent cases can be drawn out, especially in cases constituting patents.
Posted by: Atlanta Honda | January 19, 2011 at 01:16 PM
I am curious to see how the ruling went. Any new updates on the case?
Posted by: Los Angeles Nissan | January 19, 2011 at 01:18 PM
Quite interesting that the the motion to dismiss was denied.
http://www.fordcountry.net/
http://www.fordcountry.net/j/i/34599/c/8103/FordDealersDallasFortWorth
http://www.spford.com/
http://www.landrovermarin.com/
Posted by: Dallas Ford | January 19, 2011 at 01:22 PM
Cool, there is actually some good points on this post some of my friends might find this relevant, will send them a link, many thanks.
Posted by: Gluten Free Soy | January 24, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Court cases are usually complicated, long and tedious affairs.
Posted by: Trident Online University | January 25, 2011 at 04:02 PM
Lawyers make a ton of money though.
Posted by: Palm Springs Used Cars | January 26, 2011 at 07:25 PM
Passing the LSAT's is no easy task.
Posted by: Honda Dealer Atlanta | January 26, 2011 at 07:29 PM
A good example of case law. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out.
Posted by: The Diet Solution Review | February 05, 2011 at 12:50 AM
Law cases can be complicated, especially patent law cases.
Posted by: Seo Agency | February 24, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Looks like a very interesting case
Posted by: San Francisco Car Service | March 02, 2011 at 06:01 PM
thansk a lot it's interesting and beauty post
Posted by: vision without glasses review | March 08, 2011 at 01:18 PM
good article thansk a lot i'm sure that all need for it ;)
Posted by: PCI Compliance | March 09, 2011 at 08:58 AM
Let us know about the progress on the patent case. I am curious to find out how the USPTO will fare.
Posted by: Ford F-150 Dallas | March 18, 2011 at 10:47 AM