E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Purdue Pharma Products L.P. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010) | Main | AMP v. USPTO: What Everyone Else Is Saying - Part II »

June 08, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20133f07728f7970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference News from Abroad: Australian Senate to Release Gene Patenting Findings Next Week:

Comments

One submission to the Senate Committee reveals the real culprits behind the subversion of the patent system into allowing the patenting of genes - the Dark side of the Force sullying the purity of the Statute of Monopolies- those wily Darth Vaders who use words as light sabres to ensure that Evil prevails. You guessed it, WICKED PATENT ATTORNEYS:

'The propensity for those that benefit the most from patent monopolies to employ patent attorneys to draft patent applications that inevitably (no matter what legislative mechanisms are put in place to stop this behaviour) extend to things that are not "manners of new manufacture", demonstrates the futility of persevering any system of patent monopolies. Indeed, the playing of the patent system is so entrenched in the psyche of patent attorneys that this profession, which is skilled at word play, will
exploit whatever loophole is inadvertently created in statutory
language to obtain a patent monopoly for their clients, regardless of the spirit and intent of that legislation.'

The terms of reference of the Senate Committee and submissions to that Senate Committee can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/gene_patents/index.htm

May the Force be with you. Now back to the Death Star.

PS. Only patent attorneys can describe their vanquished foe as "mortally worded"!

Is the complaint for the suit in Australia available online? Is there a formal citation available yet for the case?

An audio report on the legal action can be found on the Australian Broadcasting Commission's ABC Science site at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/06/08/2921468.htm

The Federal Court listing for the case can be found at https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD643/2010/actions

The issue of whether genes are patentable is one of the issues considered in the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission titled Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health (2004)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/99/

The patentability of genes, including the issue of whether an isolated gene is a mere discovery and therefore not patentable is specifically discussed at

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/99/06.html#Heading71

Thanks Paul.

The following appears on the Senate website (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/gene_patents/index.html )

"The Senate has extended the reporting time for the Gene Patents Inquiry until 2 September 2010. The Committee sought this extension due to the extensive evidence received and the complex nature of many issues associated with this inquiry.

While the Committee has had some discussion over the conclusions and recommendations that it may reach in its report to the Senate, it requires further time to give more detailed consideration to the complex issues involved and to assess the range of opinions that were expressed in evidence during the inquiry."

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31