Myriad Lessons Learned

Abstract

In June 2013, in Assoc. of Molecular Pathologists v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (“Myriad”), the Supreme Court answered the provocative question, “Are human genes patentable?” with an equivocal, “Probably not.” Since then, a lot of ink has spilled speculating on the impact of the decision, yet many questions remain unanswered for biotechnology companies, genetic researchers, and healthcare providers who must navigate its legal aftermath — what influence will Myriad have over the patent subject matter eligibility doctrine, how will Myriad impact investment decisions within the biotechnology industry, will Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s (“Myriad”) remaining patents and proprietary data successfully keep competitors at bay, and how might personalized cancer care change as a result? Instead of answering these questions directly, this Article presents the Myriad saga as a cautionary patent tale, one that explores a more fundamental question — how can patent law, in the words of Benjamin Cardozo, “mediate between the conflicting claims of stability and progress?”