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


« Webinar on Priority Entitlement in Europe | Main | AbbVie Files Amicus Brief in Amgen v. Sanofi »

March 19, 2023


I sense that the harm to innovation referenced here is already being felt in the diagnostic field where patent eligibility is the culprit. Companies seek diagnostic improvements they can keep as trade secrets. This means that collaborations with academics, who must publish, are off the table. This also means that academics may be unduly repeating research already conducted by companies in secret. I am not sure how one would go about gathering evidence of this.

Dear JSE: David Kappos has done some studies on this question that are found (I think) on IP Watchdog and elsewhere.

I hope this case does not have a similar chilling effect on innovation in therapeutics.

Thanks for the comment

Without (hopefully) sounding too conspiratorial, one must allow that “chilling” is an aimed-for effect.

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