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
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO Remains Closed For February 11, 2010 | Main | PRG Advanced Patent Courses »

February 11, 2010


"The most controversial of these recommendations is a proposal to exempt gene patents from infringement liability."

Wonderful, the SACGHS makes a recommendation unsupported by its own facts. So how does SACGHS propose to implement this recommendation. By legislation (e.g., a new Becerra bill) or by regulatory fiat? Does SACGHS realize that this is tantamount to a "compulsory license" but even worse, without any compensation for the patent owner? Did SACGHS bother to consider the impact of this recommendation on TRIPS? What about the impact on our domestic biotech industry and the jobs that may be sacrificed by implementing this recommendation?

Oh, I thought cigarettes caused cancer.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

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