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

« Coalition of Amici File Brief in Support of Myriad | Main | Biopharmaceutical Companies Weigh-In on Myriad Case »

July 16, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20177436a8969970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Health Care Professionals Contend That Isolated DNA and cDNA Are Patent Ineligible:

Comments

"For over 150 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that products of nature are not patentable."

Don,

With the possible exception of American Fruit Growers, none of the cases cited actually "held" that a "product of nature" was unpatentable. American Wood-Paper, Cochrane, and Funk Bros. are also cases involving either "old compounds" or obvious compositions. In my view, American Fruit Growers has been of dubious precedential value ever since Chakrabarty. And whatever Chakrabarty said is dicta as the oil-eating microorganism there was deemed patent-eligible under 35 USC 101. Even more telling is that this amicus brief doesn't directly address how Myriad's isolated DNA sequence/cDNA is distinguishable from the oil-eating microorganism of Chakrabarty.

Gene patenting is idiotic. How can one just claim a genetic sequence created from 4 basic structures? I might as well patent oxygen and have the 7 billion people in the world pay me for breathing air.

Dear Dissuaged:

Of course, by that logic any chemical compound is just a combination of Cs, Hs, and Os. The oxygen analogy is a good one - because like breathing oxygen in the atmosphere is like using the genes in your cells: no patent owner has any interest in your genes (Michael Crichton to the contrary).

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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