On June 13, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.  In its decision, the Court held that cDNA was patent eligible but genomic DNA (and fragments including oligonucleotides) was not.  However, the decision should be noted not only for what it said, but also for what it did not say.  Specifically, the decision left many unanswered questions. For example, what about the patent eligibility of proteins and protein fragments?

We at the BRIC Wall thought to help put the Myriad case in context internationally, it would be helpful to conduct a survey comparing the patentability of genes, proteins and other genetic materials in a variety of countries.  The results of our efforts can be found at the following link (FINALVERSIONOFCHART2JULY5). The link will take you to a chart which examines the patentability of genes, proteins and other genetic material in 32 countries.

The collection of the information in this chart is truly the result of a great international collaboration.  The BRIC Wall would like to thank the following law firms for their contributions: Adams & Adams, AGIP KSA, Barreda Moller, Castellanos & CO., Central Intellectual Property & Law, Chadha & Chadha, China Sinda Intellectual Property, Clarke Modet & Co., Dannemann Siemsen, Dr. Shlomo Cohen & Co., Ferrere,Gowlings, Invenco, Kawaguti & Partners, Katzarov, Lee & Li, Modiano & Partners, Olivares & CIA, S.C., Noetinger & Armando, Quevedo & Ponce, Spruson & Ferguson and Tilleke & Gibbins.  Also, the BRIC Wall would like to thank our colleagues from Michael Best & Friedrich for their contributions to the chart:  Paul Jenny, Anthony Wenn andSansun Yeh.