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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« PTO "Flagging" Pending Applications that Exceed 5/25 Claim Limits | Main | USPTO News Briefs »

October 16, 2007

Comments

Simply astounding. The lack of science knowledge even permeates the halls of Congress...

Dear Me:

Actually, it's worse than that. I'm sure the Congressman will have testimony from a biased groups of professional nay-sayers on gene patenting (as did the panel that considered patent "reform") to get to his pre-ordained conclusion. So long as this never gets to a floor vote, they can debate it all they want. Maybe Becerra will be defeated in 2008, and then we can put this to bed permanently.

Thanks for the comment.

Me - you are surprised at the lack of scientific knowledge in Congress? I thought this was a foregone conclusion.

It looks like Congressman Becerra is essentially trying to legislate Diamond v. Chakrabarty out of existance.

Someone better call Michael J. Fox and Nancy or Ron Reagan if this thing picks up any traction.

Is there a provision in the Code that makes Section titles limiting in a substantive way? I looked quickly, but couldn't find one. If not, then Sec. 106 isn't limited to human genetic material, since the word "human" or "homo sapien" is not present as a limitation on the types of DNA or proteins whose patenting is barred.

Absolutely, either drafting of this is incredibly overbroad and they are complete idiots (do they know all living things have DNA?), or, even worse, they DO mean to stop all patenting of DNA and proteins. Either way, this thing is poorly drafted and incredibly poorly thought out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2019

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