Gene patents in the US - focusing on what really matters

Genome Biology

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2012, Pages

  Dobson, Allison W ^a   Evans, James P ^b  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Abstract; Classen; Diagnostics; Gene patent; Isolated dna; Method; Myriad; Obviousness; Prometheus; Sequencing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DNA EXTRACTION; DNA SEQUENCE; DOCUMENT EXAMINATION; GENE TECHNOLOGY; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT; UNITED STATES; GENETICS; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME;

DNA;

DNA; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; PATENTS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84863446810     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1474760X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-6-161     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Brice P. Myriad retains BRCA gene patents in latest legal ruling. 2011, phg foundation., http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/9422/
2. Associated Press High court throws out human gene patents. 2012, Yahoo News, Associated Press., http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-throws-human-gene-patents-161634977.html
3. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. USTPO et al. Fed Cir 2011, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit., http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1406.pdf
4. Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus Prometheus v. Mayo. 2012, Supreme Court of the United States., http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf
5. United States Patent and Trademark Office 35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions Patentable. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2010, Washington, DC: USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office., http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_101.htm
6. Brinckerhoff C. Puzzled by Prometheus. PharmaPatents blog 2012, , http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/05/24/puzzled-by-prometheus/
7. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 1981,
8. Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus Bilski v. Kappos. 2010, Supreme Court of the United States., http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
9. Conley J, Williams A. Prometheus Patents Struck Down 9-0: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Analysis. Genomics Law Report 2012, , http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2012/03/21/prometheus-patents-struck-down-9-0-mayo-collaborative-services-v-prometheus-laboratories-inc-analysis/
10. Quinn G. Killing Industry: The Supreme Court Blows Mayo v. Prometheus. IP Watchdog 2012, , http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-prometheus/id=22920/
11. Holman C. Debunking the myth that whole-genome sequencing infringes thousands of gene patents. Nat Biotechnol 2012, 30:240-244. 10.1038/nbt.2146, 22398617.
12. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 1980,
13. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec. Fed Cir 2011, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit., http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/06-1634-1649.pdf
14. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Prometheus v. Mayo. Fed Cir 2010, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit., http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1403.pdf
15. United States Patent and Trademark Office 35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2010, Washington, DC: USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office., http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm
16. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec. Fed Cir 2011, 'Additional Views' by Judge Rader, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
17. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in re Kubin. Fed Cir 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit., http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1184.pdf
18. United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary America Invents Act of 2011. United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary., http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html
19. Merrill SA, Mazza AM. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Report of the National Research Council of the National Academies 2006, Washington: National Academies Press.
20. United States Patent and Trademark Office The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2010, Washington, DC: USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office., http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1800_1801.htm
21. Huys I, Van Overwalle G, Matthijs G. Gene and genetic diagnostic method patent claims: a comparison under current European and US patent law. Eur J Hum Genet 2011, 19:1104-1107. 10.1038/ejhg.2011.76, 21654725.
22. Ridley A, Nicol D. Is there still a place for gene patents in Australia? Implications of recent United States and European case law. J Law Med 2011, 19:282-299.
23. Federal Judicial Center: History of the Federal Judiciary: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. , http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_coa_circuit_fc.html