Patent border wars: defining the boundary between scientific discoveries and patentable inventions

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 539-543

  Holman, Christopher M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING RESEARCH; GENE ENCODING; METABOLITES;

FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE; SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; COURT; DNA HYBRIDIZATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; GENE SEQUENCE; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DRUG INDUSTRY; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; GENES; HUMANS; PATENTS AS TOPIC; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 36248986161     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 35 U.S.C. § 181. (For example, a cryptographic system used by U.S. security or military agencies). Clift v. U.S., 808 F.Supp. 101 (D. Conn. 1991)
2. 35 U.S.C. § 183
3. 35 U.S.C. § 287(c)
4. 35 U.S.C. § 273
5. Rabin S. The human use of humanoid beings: chimeras and patent law. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 517-519
6. Dewar H. Human Cloning Ban Sidetracked: Senate Vote Deals Amendment Second Setback in a Week. Washington Post 19 (2002 June) A4
7. European Patent Convention (EPC) Article 53
8. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July, 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions
9. Abbott A., and Hellerer U. Politicians seek to block human-gene patents in Europe. Nature 404 (2000) 802
10. Patents, I. (Amendment) Act 2005, § 4 (repealing Section 5 of the law then in effect, the Patents Act, 1970 (2002)), available at http://patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/patent/patent_2005.pdf) (last visited Sept. 1, 2007). The prior law had prohibited the grant of patents on substances capable of use as food, medicine, or drug: see India Patents Act, 1970 (2002) § 5(a)
11. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
12. J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int' l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 143-46 (2001); Ex parte Allen, 2 USPQ2d 1425 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and Animals - Patentability (April 21, 1987) 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24
13. USPTO Utility Examination Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. 1092 (2001)
14. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 (1981), citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978)
15. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
16. Crichton, M. (2007) Patenting Life, editorial, New York Times 23 February, p. A23
17. U.S. Patent No 141,072
18. Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co., 189 F. 95, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1911). In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 1397 (C.C.P.A. 1970)
19. Brief for Amicus Curiae Affymetrix, Inc. in Support of Appellee, In re Dane K. Fisher and Raghunath v. Lalgudi, 2004 WL 4996615 (2004)
20. Pires de Carvalho N. The problem of gene patents. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 3 (2004) 701-753
21. Barton J.H. Emerging patent issues in genomic diagnostics. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 939-941
22. Holman, C.M. The impact of human gene patents on innovation and access: a survey of human gene patent litigation. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review (in press)
23. H.R. 977, 110th Cong. (2007)
24. As evidence of lack of support, note that there does not appear to be any move to include the ban in the more general patent reform legislation currently being considered by Congress. Patent Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 1908, 110th Cong. (2007). For criticism of the GRAA, see, e.g., Noonan, K. (2007) Science Fiction in the New York Times, http://www.patentdocs.us/patent_docs/2007/02/science_fiction.html (last visited Sept. 3, 2007)
25. Genomic Research and Diagnostic Accessibility Act of 2002, H.R. 3967, 107th Cong. (2002)
26. U.S. Patent Nos 5,693,473; 5,709,999; 5,747,282 and 5,753,441
27. In: Merrill S., and Mazza A. (Eds). Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health (2006), National Academic Press 62-68
28. Caulfield T., et al. Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 1091-1094
29. Metabolite Labs v. LabCorp of America, 370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
30. U.S. Patent No 4,940,658 (claim 13)
31. LabCorp of America v. Metabolite Labs, 126 S. Ct. 543 (2006)
32. LabCorp of America v. Metabolite Labs, 126 S. Ct. 2921 (2006)
33. Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, 381 F.Supp.2d 452 (D. Md. 2005)
34. Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly, 2007 WL 2011279 (D. Mass. 2007)
35. U.S. Patent Nos 6,420,139; 6,638,739; 5,728,385 and 5,723,283
36. Memorandum Order, Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, Civ. No. 04-2607 (D. Md., filed August 16, 2006)
37. U.S. Patent No 6,410,516
38. Pollack, A. (2006) Lilly Loses Patent Case to Ariad, New York Times 5 May, p. C1
39. Ritchie de Larena L. The price of progress: are universities adding to the cost?. Houst. Law Rev. 43 (2007) 1373-1444
40. U.S. Patent Nos 5,843,780; 6,200,806 and 7,029,913