By Nicholson Price Two weeks after the Supreme Court held isolated naturally occurring DNA unpatentable in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., there’s been quite a lot of commentary about the case’s implications for the biotech industry and medical science. I’ll just mention a few here, with the certainty that there will be…
By Arthur Caplan Zachary D Caplan JD, attorney at law firm in Philadelphia that filed amicus brief on behalf of drug wholesalers and pharmacies in FTC v. Actavis Arthur Caplan PhD, Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Langone Medical Center Amidst all the news about various Supreme Court decisions there is one that ought not be overlooked…
By Arthur Caplan Bill of Health contributor Art Caplan weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Myriad case with an opinion piece at NBC: “The Supreme Court has finally done what should have been done years ago — declared that genes which naturally exist in all of us cannot be patented. For years…
This morning on WBUR, Eric Lander discussed the significance of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics that DNA cannot be patented. Lander, the Director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, filed an amicus brief in the case that was co-authored by Petrie-Flom Center Faculty Co-Director and Bill of Health editor I.…
By Scott Burris Last week, Northeastern University’s effort to convene a much-needed conference on the future of health policy was a casualty of the successful manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. One hardly wants to make too much of a stymied conference given all the human damage of the bombing and its aftermath, but all…
By I. Glenn Cohen [Cross posted at Prawfsblawg.com] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 15 in Association of Molecular Pathology et al. v Myriad, concerning whether human genes are patent-eligible subject matter. The case focused on Myriad’s patents on two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, involved in early-onset breast cancer. Surprisingly, many of the…
By Ryan Abbott I wrote earlier this month about the case between Novartis and the Union of India, in which the Supreme Court of India affirmed denying a patent for Novartis’ anti-cancer drug Glivec. Adriana Benedict added an insightful post about the case last week. In my last post, I talked about the theory behind the decision and…
By Adriana Benedict Last week, Ryan Abbot blogged here about the Novartis case decided last Monday by the Supreme Court of India. Since then, there have been a broad range of reactions to the case, but many of them appear to have left a lurking elephant in the room. I’d like to attempt to provide…
By Adriana Benedict As Jonathan Darrow notes below, on Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Actavis, the “pay for delay” case questioning whether or not reverse payment settlements in Hatch-Waxman litigation should be presumptively anticompetitive, a question on which the Circuit Courts are divided. This particular case involves…
By Katie Booth In the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Auburn Regional Medical Center, the Court held that a suit against HHS by eighteen hospitals alleging intentional underpayment of Medicare reimbursements was barred by a 180-day internal agency deadline for appeals of reimbursement decisions. The rub is that the hospitals only found out about the…
