October 4, 2012 | 1:00-2:00 p.m. ET | Webinar
On August 16, 2012 the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Myriad’s right to patent “isolated” genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, which account for most inherited forms of breast and ovarian cancers. But the court denied the company’s effort to patent methods of “comparing” or “analyzing” DNA sequences. This latest development continues to raise concerns about the future of gene patenting and the development of gene-based diagnostics.
Attorney Kevin E. Noonan, PhD, of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, notes that the decision leaves plenty of open questions and room for interpretation. What does it all mean for TTOs and university researchers with gene-based innovations, in terms of both patenting and licensing? In addition, the decision is likely not the last word on the matter, with a Supreme Court case likely on next year’s docket – a particular worry since the related ruling in Prometheus (and the Supremes’ directive to re-hear Myriad at the Fed Circuit) seem to hint at skepticism over lines drawn around “products of nature.”
Join Dr. Noonan for a one-hour webinar that will deeply analyze the most recent decision and discuss how the opinion affects your university and its relevant IP. He’ll discuss:
- What the past has revealed:
- The first CAFC decision
- Enter Prometheus – GVR from the Supreme Court
- The second CAFC decision
- What the future holds:
- En banc considerations
- Certiorari petition
- What university TTOs should do now:
- Patent or wait for more clarification?
- Patent drafting: Key factors to apply in your claims
- Licensing: Green light or caution?
Sponsored by: Technology Transfer Tactics
View registration details at http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/audio/mtgpf/