Patenting bioinformatic inventions: Emerging trends in Europe: A look at the European Patent Office’s past stance on bioinformatics patents informs recent proposals for reform

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 517-518

  Hultquist, Steven J ^a   Harrison, Robert ^b   Yang, Yongzhi ^a  

^a Huber and Schüssler ^*  (United States)

^b Huber/Schussler Intellectual P   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; DATA BASE; DNA MICROARRAY; EUROPE; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES; DNA; EUROPE; OLIGONUCLEOTIDE ARRAY SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; PATENTS;

EID: 0036581351     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0502-517     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bouchie, A. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 399 (2001).
2. Bouchie, A. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 193 (2001).
3. Toner, B. Bioinformatics patents remain a rarity in IP-heavy biopharmaceutical industry. GenomeWeb, 4 July 2001 (http://www.genomeweb.com).
4. Art. 52(2) of the European Patent Convention states, for example, that the following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions: “(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information.”
5. T 0208/84 of 15 July 1986 “Computer-related Invention/VICOM.” Official J. Eur. Pat. Off. 14–23 (1987).
6. See point 6 of T 0208/84 (ref. 5).
7. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd, [2001] FXA 612 (15 May 2001).
8. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Corp., 499 US 340 (1991).
9. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council adopted on 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. O.J. Eur. Union No. L77, 27 March 1996, 20 (the “Database Directive”), Art. 1, §2.
10. Art. 7, §1 of the Database Directive.
11. Decision T 1194/97–3.5.2 of 15 March 2001. “Data Structure Product/PHILIPS.”
12. See point 3.3. of decision T 1194/97 (ref. 11).
13. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, for example, has emphasized that in order to include an algorithm as part of a patent claim, it is necessary that the algorithm be applied to produce a “useful, concrete and tangible result.” State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
14. Note, however, that the lines of code that implement the algorithm are protectable by copyright.
15. Part C, Chapter IV, 2.3.
16. T 0059/93–3.5.1. of 20 April 1994.
17. See point 3.2 of T 0059/93 (ref. 16).
18. T0115/85 of 5 September 1988 “Computer-related Invention/IBM.” Official J.Eur. Pat. Off. 30–34 (1990).
19. See point 7 of T0115/85 (ref. 18).
20. In the US, the inventor can still file a patent application during a period of one year after disclosure. However, no valid patent rights can be obtained outside of the US.
21. Garabedian, T.E. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 401–402 (2002).