Myriad Lessons Learned

41 Pages Posted: 24 Sep 2014 Last revised: 6 Mar 2015

See all articles by Amelia Smith Rinehart

Amelia Smith Rinehart

University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law

Date Written: 2015


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?”

Suggested Citation

Rinehart, Amelia Smith, Myriad Lessons Learned (2015). UC Irvine Law Review (Forthcoming); University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 87. Available at SSRN:

Amelia Smith Rinehart (Contact Author)

University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law ( email )

383 S. University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
United States
801 581 6034 (Phone)
801 581 6897 (Fax)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics