Law Commons^™

The Replicability Crisis In Patent Law, Janet Freilich

Indiana Law Journal

There is a “replicability crisis” in the scientific literature. Scientists attempting to redo experiments in reputable, peer-reviewed journals have found that staggering numbers of these experiments—up to 90%—do not work. Patents, like scientific articles, contain experiments. These experiments often form the backbone of the patent and provide crucial support for patentability. Patent examiners use these experiments to evaluate whether the invention works, and thus whether the patent should be granted. The replicability crisis in the scientific literature is therefore of utmost importance to the patent system. Transferring the insights of the replicability crisis to patents begs the question of whether …

A Siri-Ous Societal Issue: Should Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Receive Patent Or Copyright Protection?, Samuel Scholz

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Can An Improved Disclosure Mechanism Moderate Algorithm-Based Software Patentability In The Public Interest?, Vinicius Sala

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Is Dna Really A Natural Product? It's Time To Separate Fact From (Legal) Fiction: An Examination Of Dna Patentability As A Biological Algorithm In The Post-Myriad Era, Nicholas Ulen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court delivered its landmark decision in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., holding isolated DNA unpatentable, thereby invalidating the claims of thousands of DNA patents in the process. The opinion, delivered by Justice Thomas, reasoned that the act of separating DNA from the body did not sufficiently transform the molecule beyond what naturally exists. Yet the Court found that line to be crossed when it held certain artificially synthesized complementary DNA molecules coding for the exact same gene patentable. Unlike the Federal Circuit, the Court focused its analysis not on the …

Noa V. Doa: Increasing Medical Diagnostic Patentability After Mayo, Karen Mckenzie

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

The medical diagnostics market is expected to reach 65 billion by 2018. In March 2012, in Mayo Collborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc. , ("Mayo") the U.S. Supreme held that the Mayo Clinic (the "Clinic") had not infringed on Prometheus Labs’ (“Prometheus”) diagnostic patent because the Prometheus patent involved ineligible subject matter, and was therefore invalid. Section 101 of the Patent Act defines eligible subject matter an “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” as patentable subject matter. Courts have held that Section 101 contains an implicit exception, making laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract …

The Uneasy Case For Patent Law, Rachel E. Sachs

Michigan Law Review

A central tenet of patent law scholarship holds that if any scientific field truly needs patents to stimulate progress, it is pharmaceuticals. Patents are thought to be critical in encouraging pharmaceutical companies to develop and commercialize new therapies, due to the high costs of researching diseases, developing treatments, and bringing drugs through the complex, expensive approval process. Scholars and policymakers often point to patent law’s apparent success in the pharmaceutical industry to justify broader calls for more expansive patent rights.

This Article challenges this conventional wisdom about the centrality of patents to drug development by presenting a case study of …

Alice: The Status Quo Or Total Chaos?, Matthew Moldovanyi

Journal of Law, Technology, & the Internet

"On June 19, 2014 the Supreme Court handed down a highly important opinion discussing what is considered patentable subject matter in the United States. The case, Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, involved a group of patents for computer software that mitigated settlement risk in financial transactions. The Court held that these patents were not drawn to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012) because the claims were directed toward abstract ideas, which are unpatentable." "This ruling has drawn decidedly mixed reactions from commentators in the legal field. Moreover, this case leaves United States Patent and Trademark …

After Myriad: Reconsidering The Incentives For Innovation In The Biotech Industry, Daniel K. Yarbrough

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 101 allows a patent for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Recently, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions affecting the doctrine of patentable subject matter under § 101. Starting with Bilski v. Kappos (2011), and continuing with Mayo Collaborative Services, Inc. v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012), Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013) and, most recently, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (2014), every year has brought another major change to the way in which the Court assesses patentability. In Myriad, the …

Inoculation Inventions: The Interplay Of Infringement And Immunity In The Development Of Biodefense Vaccines, Cynthia M. Ho

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Public Access Versus Proprietary Rights In Genomic Information: What Is The Proper Role Of Intellectual Property Rights?, Janice M. Mueller

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.