直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

A Retrospective on Myriad Genetics: What Makes Medical Diagnostics Patent-Eligible 8 Years Later?

May/June 2021

IP Litigator

By Alexander E. Harding; Daniel C. Cooley

The law on whether medical diagnostic methods are patent-eligible can be challenging. Inventors who have heard of cases like Myriad Genetics may end up believing that methods of diagnosing disease are per-se ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Judge Moore of the Federal Circuit has remarked that “[s]ince Mayo, we have held every single diagnostic claim in every case before us ineligible.” Yet the Federal Circuit has hinted that inventions in the medical diagnostic space may be eligible or protection when the claims are directed to applications of laws of nature rather than the laws of nature themselves. Recent caselaw highlights the line that divides ineligible and eligible subject matter.

Read "A Retrospective on Myriad Genetics: What Makes Medical Diagnostics Patent-Eligible 8 Years Later?"

Tags

Myriad, patent-eligible, 35 U.S.C. § 101

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Medical Device and Diagnostics

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Alexander E. Harding
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4324
Email
Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email

Reprinted with permission from the IP Litigator, published by Wolters Kluwer. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP