Patenting genome research tools and the law

Comptes Rendus - Biologies

Volumn 326, Issue 10-11, 2003, Pages 1115-1120

  Eisenberg, Rebecca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Gene; Information; Intellectual property; Patent; Scope of protection

Indexed keywords

COMPLEMENTARY DNA;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENOME; RESEARCH;

ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DNA SEQUENCE; DRUG DESIGN; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC CODE; GENOME ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN GENETICS; INFORMATION; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT; PHARMACOGENOMICS;

EID: 0347122026     PISSN: 16310691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2003.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Diamond v. Chalcrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).
2. US Patent No. 4, 736, 866.
3. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 US 175 (1981).
4. State St. Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F. 3d 1368 (1998).
5. See, e.g., L.R. Kass, 'Patenting Life' Commentary, December 198 1, p. 56;
6. R. Dresser, Ethical and legal issues in patenting new animal life, Jurimetrics J. 28 (1988) 399-435.
7. R.G. Adler, Genome research: Fulfilling the public's expectations for knowledge and commercialization, Science 257 (1992) 908;
8. R.S. Eisenberg, Genes, patents, and product development, Science 257 (1992) 903;
9. B. Healy, Special report on gene patenting, New Eng. J. Med. 327 (1992) 664;
10. T.D. Kiley, Patents on random complementary DNA fragments?, Science 257 (1992) 915.
11. See, e.g., A. Bryant, G. Beals, Who will own the code of life?, Newsweek (10 April 2000);
12. T. Abate, Call it the gene rush - patent stakes run high, San Francisco Chronicle (25 April 2000) A8;
13. N. Wade, Rivals on offensive as they near end of genome race, The New York Times (7 May 2000);
14. P.G. Gosselin, P. Jacobs, Clinton, Blair to back access to genetic code: the two leaders plan to issue joint statement that data on human genome should be public, Not Private Property, Los Angeles Time (14 March 2000), Home Edition at C1.
15. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, Marrakech Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments - Results of the Uruguay Round, Vol. 31, 33, International Legal Materials 81, 1994, http://www.wto. org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm (hereinafter "TRIPS Agreement"), Art. 27.
16. W.M. Cohen et al., Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions & why US manufacturing firms patent (or not), National Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 7552, 2000.
17. SNP Consortium website at http://snp.cshl.org/about/ program/html.
18. Joint Statement by President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK, 14 March 2000, http://www.geneticalliance. org/geneticissues/clintonblair.html.
19. http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm.
20. US Constitution, Article 8, clause 8.
21. 35 US Code §101.
22. Brenner v. Manson, 383 US 519 (1966).
23. 35 US Code §112.
24. USPTO, Utility Examination Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. 1092, 1098 (Jan. 5, 2001).
25. See, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (2003); Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Amgen v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
26. Fiers v. Revel, 984 F. 2d 1164 (Fed. Cit. 1993).
27. University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
28. 35 US Code §103.