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


« Biotech/Pharma Docket | Main | Generic Pharmaceuticals Conference »

June 17, 2010


If you're reading Chadrabarty, congratulations for starting the mess that confused a generation of patent lawlyers.

Oh and btw, your "invention" was no good anyway. Great job. No really. I wonder how much money you blew on this case?

Maybe if you had saved those $$$ you could have inventedlol something that wasn't horrible we wouldn't be so worried about this current little slip up by BP.


Patenting in Biotechnology can be categorised in two ways. One way faciliate that the manipulated genes can be patented and forms statutory patentable subject matter in Diamond vs Chakraborthy case. On the other hand, "Myriad AMP v. USPTO Decision" , the court held that "isolated DNA" is nothing but physical embodiment of genetic information and forms the non-statutory subject matter for patenting. Now, the appellate court has to strike a clear cut balance between these two extreme cases so as to establish balancing patent jurisprudence for Biotechnology cases.

Biotech patent jurisprudence can be categorised into two cases. One in which the patenting life forms through gene manipulation was held to be statutory patentable subject matter through which biotech industries benefitted immensely. Other case in which the court held that patenting isolated DNA was non statutory subject matter since it was nothing but physical embodiment of genetic information. Since, the decision in these cases involve contradictory patentable jurisprudence, the apex court on appeal should strike a clear cut balance between these two cases so that the court verdict establishes the right kind of patentable jurisprudence in Biotech cases.


Let's definitely raise a toast to Chakrabarty and hope that "anything under the sun that is made by man" remains the standard for patent-eligible under 35 USC 101, even after SCOTUS opines (God truly only knows when) in Bilski.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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 30 31