Law Commons^™

Is The Eli Lilly Written Description Requirement A Paper Tiger?: A Comprehensive Assessment Of The Impact Of Eli Lilly And Its Progeny In The Courts And Pto, Christopher M. Holman

ExpressO

In University of California v. Eli Lilly, decided by the Federal Circuit in 1997, the court established for the first time a new form of patent law’s written description requirement, apparently targeted specifically at biotechnology. To this day, the conventional wisdom is that the so-called Lilly written description requirement (“LWD”) exists as a biotechnology-specific “super-enablement” requirement, substantially more stringent than the enablement requirement (the conventional standard for patentability), and standing as an impediment to effective patent protection for biotechnology inventions. My objective in writing this article was to test this conventional wisdom, by conducting a comprehensive search for all LWD …

Stealing What's Free: Exploring Compensation To Body Parts Sources For Their Contribution To Profitable Biomedical Research, Jo-Anne Yau

ExpressO

It is undisputed in the biotechnology industry that human body parts play a vital role in research. The body parts donors, referred to as "Sources" in this article, are subjected to physical and financial exploitation. Forbidding the explosion of profits from trickling down to the Source presents an irrational inequity. Despite established law, it is evident from case analysis, prevailing social practices, and constitutional interpretation that Source compensation is a plausible solution.

This article proposes a model of compensation for Sources, whereby Sources are compensated based on a proportionate share of the research profits set aside for the Source as …