The “gene patent” dichotomy between the US and Australia

The recent Meat & Livestock Australia Limited v Cargill, Inc (MLA) Federal Court decision has brought the significant differences that exist between Australian and US “gene patent” practice into sharp focus. These differences predominantly arise from the peculiarities of the US and AU Myriad decisions as well as the US Mayo v. Prometheus and Ariosa v.

Should the Australian Patent Office be denying patent eligibility to cDNA inventions?

In this, the first of a trilogy of articles investigating specific areas of Australian Patent Office examination practice, I consider how the High Court’s decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 (7 October 2015) (the Myriad decision) has been interpreted to render all non-naturally-occurring cDNA compositions patent ineligible. I also question the

Update in the US Supreme Court landmark Myriad gene patent case

A decision is expected later this month from the US Supreme Court in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc, which is considering the patentability of isolated human genes claimed in patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. Commentators present at the oral arguments, which were heard in April 2013, have indicated