When patents threaten science

Science

Volumn 314, Issue 5804, 2006, Pages 1395-1396

  Andrews, Lori ^a   Paradise, Jordan ^b   Holbrook, Timothy ^a   Bochneak, Danielle ^a  

^a CHICAGO KENT COLLEGE OF LAW   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS;

ELECTRIC CURRENT; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MAGNETIC FIELD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METABOLITE; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; MATHEMATICS; NATURAL SCIENCE; POLICY; SCIENCE;

MATHEMATICS; NATURE; PATENTS; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33845304716     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1135872     Document Type: Short Survey

References (25)

1. 126 S. Ct. 2921 (2006).
2. "Request for comments on interim guidelines for examination of patent applications for patent subject matter eligibility," Fed. Reg. 70, 75451 (2006).
3. Fed. Reg. 71, 34307 (2006).
4. See also "Interim guidelines for examination of patent applications for patent subject matter eligibility," Off. Gaz. Pot. Office 1300, 142 (15 November 2005).
5. Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F. 3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
6. R. S. Eisenberg, Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 317 (2006).
7. L. Andrews, Chron. Higher Educ. 52, (24), B20 (17 February 2006).
8. Wall Street Journal, 1 March 2006, p. A14.
9. New York Times, 22 March 2006, p. A24.
10. B. Klemens, Math You Can't Use (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 2006), pp. 46-61.
11. U.S. Patent 6,904,421 (2005).
12. U.S. Patent 5,190,458 (1993).
13. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950).
14. U.S. Patent 5,966,712 (1999).
15. J. Paradise et al., Science 307, 1566 (2005).
16. U.S. Patent 6,660,476 (1999).
17. 35 U.S.Code § 101.
18. O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854).
19. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
20. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 68 (1972).
21. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
22. S. Merrill et al., Eds., A Patent System for the 21st Century (National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004), pp. 25-27.
23. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group 149 F. 3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1093 (1999).
24. Madey v. Duke University, 307 F. 3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
25. Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator Awards in Health Policy Research Program; the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy under award number DE-FG02-06ER64276; and an NSF grant, SES 0508321.