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.
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  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
When the Australian High Court recently ruled against the patentability of an isolated naturally-occurring gene sequence, many anticipated that all isolated naturally-occurring material would become patent ineligible. Today, however, the Australian Patent Office has released its much anticipated revised examination guidelines, which indicate that isolated naturally-occurring material such as proteins and micro-organisms remain eligible for
The Australian Patent Office has released, and invited public consultation on, its proposed revision of examination practice in view of the High Court Myriad gene patent ruling. A copy of the guidelines can be found here: When the Australian High Court Myriad decision was handed down, there was speculation that it may be viewed in
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