QUESTION PRESENTED:
Many patients seek genetic testing to see if they have mutations in their
genes that are associated with a significantly increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer.  Respondent Myriad Genetics obtained patents on two human genes that correlate to this risk, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. These patents claim every naturally-occurring version of those genes, including mutations, on the theory that Myriad invented something patent--eligible simply by removing ("isolating") the genes from the body.  Petitioners are primarily medical professionals who regularly use routine, conventional genetic testing methods to examine genes, but are prohibited from examining the human genes that Myriad claims to own. This case therefore presents the following questions:

1. Are human genes patentable?

2. Did the court of appeals err in upholding a method claim by Myriad that
is irreconcilable with this Court's ruling in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)? 

3. Did the court of appeals err in adopting a new and inflexible rule,
contrary to normal standing rules and this Court's decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), that petitioners who have been indisputably deterred by Myriad's "active enforcement" of its patent rights nonetheless lack standing to challenge those patents absent evidence that they have been personally threatened with an infringement action?

Merit Briefs

• Brief for Petitioners the Association for Molecular Pathology, et al.
• Brief for Respondents Myriad Genetics, Inc.
• Reply Brief for Petitioners, The Association for Molecular Pathology, et al

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for AARP in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for American Medical Association, American Society of Human Genetics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association, American College of Legal Medicine, and the Medical Society of the State of New York in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Janis Chester, M.D., and Graham L. Spruiell, M.D., in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Canavan Foundation, Claire Altman Heine Foundation, March of Dimes Foundation, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, National Association for Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum, and Ovarian Cancer National Alliance in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and Prof. D. Brian Scarnecchia in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Fifteen Law Professors in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Genedx and Law Professors in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Genformatic LLC in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for International Center for Technology Assessment, Council for Responsible Genetics, Greenpeace, Indigenous People Council on Biocolonialism, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Environmental Health in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Invitae Corporation in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Kali N. Murray and Erika R. George in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Knowledge Ecology International in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the National Women’s Health Network, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, Disability Rights Legal Center, Forward Together, the Center for Genetics and Society, the Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, Alliance for Humane Biotechnology, G. Michael Roybal, Md, Mph, and Anne L. Peters, Md in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Professor Eileen M. Kane in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Animal Health Institute and Merial Limited in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Boston Patent Law Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Coalition for 21st Century Medicine in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Dr. Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Drs. Larry Geier, William Harb, Adam Ofer, and Donald Aptekar in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Croplife International in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Federal Circuit Bar Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Nanobusiness Commercialization Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Genentech, Inc.; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Ventana Medical Systems, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Corporation; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Gilead Sciences, Inc., Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Confluence Life Sciences, Inc., Euclises Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Biogenerator, in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Inhouse Patent Counsel, LLC in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Immatics Biotechnologies, Gmbh in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Intellectual Property Amicus Brief Clinic of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property at the University of New Hampshire School of Law in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Intellectual Property Owners Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Lynch Syndrome International in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Mpeg La, LLC in Support of Respondents
• Brief for National Venture Capital Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the New York Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Professor Jeffrey A. Lefstin in Support of Respondents
• Brief for University of Baltimore/Johns Hopkins University Center for Medicine & Law, and Law Professors Gregory Dolin, M.D., et al. in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Target Discovery, Inc. in Support of Affirmance
• Brief for Academics in Law, Medicine, Health Policy and Clinical Genetics in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Affirmance but in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for CLS Bank International in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Institute of Professional Representatives Before the European Patent Office (EPI) in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Juhasz Law Firm, P.C. in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Eric S. Lander in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Fédération Internationale Des Conseils en Propriété Intellectuelle in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the United States in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for James D. Watson, Ph.D. in Support of Neither Party