Myriad speaks out of both sides of its mouth
Posted by Jesse Reynolds March 8, 2010
Biopolitical Times
As we've been reporting, Myriad Genetics is the subject of a lawsuit organized by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation challenging the constitutionality of its patent on a human gene related to breast cancer. At a court hearing in February, the company's lawyers not surprisingly used grandiose language, claiming that a ruling against it would "effectively unravel the foundation of the entire biotechnology industry."
But this week, in a presentation to its investors, Myriad's CEO downplayed the relevance of the case. Peter Meldrum said that "regardless of the outcome of this particular lawsuit, it will not have a material adverse effect on the company … or on the future revenues of our products."
This inconsistency was noticed by a reporter at GenomeWeb, who wrote:
But this week, in a presentation to its investors, Myriad's CEO downplayed the relevance of the case. Peter Meldrum said that "regardless of the outcome of this particular lawsuit, it will not have a material adverse effect on the company … or on the future revenues of our products."
This inconsistency was noticed by a reporter at GenomeWeb, who wrote:
While Myriad presented a tempered and nonchalant attitude to investors about the impact of the lawsuit on its business, the company and other defendants have told a different story in the courtroom in response to the broader implications of the suit, which is essentially challenging the constitutionality of patenting all genetic sequences on First Amendment grounds.
Myriad can't have it both ways. Its executives should be careful about making such assertions in public, as the plaintiffs may seize upon them and introduce them in the courtroom.
Previously on Biopolitical Times: