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
Will the Australian High Court Myriad “gene patent” decision impact the patenting of all isolated biological material?
Last week, Shelston IP reported that the Australian High Court (the Australian equivalent to the US Supreme Court) unanimous ruled that isolated naturally-occurring nucleic acids were not patentable subject matter in Australia. The decision itself has been widely reported. There has, however, been little or no commentary regarding the ramifications of the decision and, in
The High Court of Australia has unanimously ruled that isolated naturally occurring nucleic acids are not patentable subject matter in Australia. This decision overturns the earlier ruling of the Federal Court and the unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court. The present case results from a legal challenge to Myriad’s Australian patent, 686004 from