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


« Rare Genomics Institute Announces Crowdfunding Initiative for Rare Diseases | Main | Webinar on Patent Infringement Letters »

May 28, 2015



A well-stated and factually supported view on why the patenting of genetic materials and other natural products is necessary. I frankly grow weary of philosophical arguments like those proposed by Dave K. which are reminiscent to me of Aristotle's view that the sun revolved around the earth and thus impeded astronomical research for centuries. And before I hear that I'm simply a scientifically trained patent attorney, my degree in chemistry is a BA, not a BS, as I got a traditional liberal arts education at Carleton College, just happened to major in chemistry. (BTW, the ACLU attorney who argued at SCOTUS is a fellow Carleton alum with a degree I believe in political science and I had an interesting discussion one evening with some of his classmates about the Myriad case.) Like you suggest, we need to address issues like the patent eligibility of natural products with some logic and more factual understanding of potential consequences of impeding research and innovation in such materials if deemed patent-ineligible. Unfortunately, this debate is being dominated far too much by philosophy, hype, PR, and agendas that are given far more credence than they deserve. That includes the Royal Nine who seem to proud of being scientifically ignorant, but sure be frankly embarrassed for expressing such an attitude.

A great example of the very apt statement above that "a patent is not a hunting licence" [for an actual, complete, invention with specific utility and enablement] is the University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 375 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(denying rehearing en banc).
Also, the Sup. Ct. decision some years ago that everyone likes to forget about that just claiming a compound as an "intermediate" is insufficient.

Dear Kevin,

I appreciate your contribution to the new volume, and your respectful ability to engage with contrary points of view, as well as to take seriously the philosophical investigation of legal topics. You are a mensch, and a gentleman. You have also proven since we began our conversation about this topic that people of good will and contradictory opinions can be civil, logical, and also passionate in defense of their claims without casting aspersions on each other's characters. This is a rare faculty in this day and age, and especially in this medium, and your site and its contributors are a testament to what is best in this field.


Thanks, David. Likewise

I do so love the back-slapping.

Unfortunately you've got a long way to go, Kevin, before anyone should take you seriously as a critic of "intentional ignorance."

Prometheus v. Mayo is only a few years old, after all. You think everyone has forgotten your endless attempts to divert discussion away from the unrebuttable facts of that case? Nice try, anyway.

That said, your web site operates without major interruptions in service. Congratulations.

I see the entity (MM) has morphed with yet another sockpuppet...

Get well soon, PatentDocs.


Most definitely agree that a new incarnation of Malcolm has unfortunately infested Patent Docs

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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