Are ests patentable?: A roundtable at the us pto suggests that sequencing machines may be compromising biotech’s patent position

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 15, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 911-912

  Auth, Dorothy R ^a  

^a Morgan and Finnegan   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENE PRODUCT; COMPLEMENTARY DNA;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE TECHNOLOGY; GOVERNMENT; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; GENETICS; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; NOMENCLATURE; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BASE SEQUENCE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DNA, COMPLEMENTARY; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; PATENTS; TERMINOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0031230576     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0997-911     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Moleculon Research Corporation v. CBS, Inc. 793 F.2d 1261.
2. See Letter from Commissioner Lehman to Dr. Varmus (4/2/97) at http://ftplaw.wuacc.edu/listproc/patent-1/msg00009.html
3. B.G. Corporation, v. Walter Kidde & Company. 79 F.2d 20, 22 (2nd Cir. 1935); E.I DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Mallincrodt, Inc. 654 F.Supp. 890, 906 (S.D. Ohio 1987).
4. B.G. Corp. v. Walter Kidde & Co. 79 f.2d 20, 22 (2nd Cir. 1935).
5. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company. 750 F.2d 1569, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed.Cir. 1984).
6. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970).
7. Amgen v. Chugai, 927 F.2d 1200(Fed.Cir. 1991).
8. Amgen, 927F.2d at 1214.
9. Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170 (Fed.Cir. 1993).
10. Regents of University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 43 USPQ2d 1398, (Fed.Cir. July, 22, 1997) (also available at: http://www.ipo.org/EliLilly.htm)
11. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 502 (CCPA 1976).
12. In re Ruschig 379 F.2d 990, 994 (CCPA 1967).