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

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

« Senator Tillis Proposes Patent Eligibility Reform (Again) | Main | Oral Arguments Scheduled in CRISPR Interferences »

August 03, 2022

Comments

Some kind of codification of the patent eligibility of biotechnological inventions is required to overcome the arbitrariness of the courts in deciding on these matters, where it seems that other aspects (novelty; inventive step) play a role in the eligibility decision.
If jurisdictions with legislation (e.g. the EPC) and without (e.g. USA, Canada) are compared, it appears that there are far fewer controversies of court decisions in countries in which the patent eligibility of biotechnological inventions is embedded into the Patent Act.

Changing the definition in 100 of process to this type of "must make" (i.e. manufacture) SHOULD BE rejected.

More Trojan Horse stuff here...

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2023

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