The following is excerpted from Eric W. Guttag's March 30, 2010 post at IPWatchdog:
A case which has recently drawn my ire is Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO which involves various patents obtained by Myriad Genetics (NASDAQ:MYGN) relating the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequences which have been found to be potentially useful in identifying the presence of mutations correlating with a predisposition to breast or ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs in AMP who want Myriad’s patents invalidated are represented by the ACLU. The ACLU has put forth (in my opinion) the preposterous and deliberately distorted view that Myriad’s patents cover the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene themselves. That is simply not true, as Dale Halling pointed out in his article ACLU Should Be Hit With Rule 11 Sanctions posted on IPWatchdog. I also agree with Dale (as do others), that the ACLU should be sanctioned under FRCP Rule 11 for this gross and deliberate misrepresentation of what Myriad’s patents cover.
Unfortunately, the ACLU appears to have found an “ally” in Judge Sweet, who is the district court judge handling the AMP case. In my view, Judge Sweet has either been duped by the ACLU, or is more likely complicit in accepting the ACLU’s warped view of what these patents cover. That became evident when Judge Sweet denied the motions by Myriad and the USPTO to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Read the full post here.