Law Commons^™

Genes 101: Are Human Genes Patentable Subject Matter?, Andrew Bowman

Law Student Publications

This comment proposes a totality-of-the-circumstances approach to analyzing biological molecules under § 101 such that both the structure and its information is examined. Part II of this note reviews relevant precedent in patent law. Part III analyzes the Federal Circuit's Myriad decision, and Part IV explains the potential effects of the recent Supreme Court decision Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. Finally, in Part V, the patent eligibility of human genes is examined. Analyzing this issue under the proposed totality-of-the-circumstances approach, this article concludes that isolated human genes are not patentable.

What Do America's First Patents Have To Do With Today's?, Kristen Jakobsen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

In an invited response to an article by Prof. Michael Risch, Prof. Osenga reexamines some of the conclusions drawn by his study of early American Patents and what they suggested about inventors' perceptions of patentability.

The Technological Edge, Elizabeth I. Winston

Scholarly Articles

To grant a patent to natural phenomena hinders innovation, taking back from the public that which the public has a right to possess. To deny a patent to man’s manufacture undercuts the fundamental bargain of the patent system. All inventions, at their core, may be deemed natural, rendering it difficult to distinguish between man’s manufacture and natural phenomena. Determining whether the innovative aspect of the product is a technological one, rather than a natural one, can clarify whether the patent grant promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. The higher the level of skill in the art required …

Patent Law's Audience, Mark D. Janis, Timothy R. Holbrook

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Many rules of patent law rest on a false premise about their target audience. Rules of patentability purport to provide subtle incentives to innovators. However, innovators typically encounter these rules only indirectly, through intermediaries such as lawyers, venture capitalists, managers, and others. Rules of patent scope strive to provide notice of the boundaries of the patent right to anyone whose activities might approach those boundaries, including, in theory, any member of the general public. But the rules of patent scope are practically incomprehensible to the general public. In this Article, we argue that rules of patent law should be designed …

Better Mistakes In Patent Law, Andres Sawicki

Articles

This Article analyzes patent mistakes-that is, mistakes made by the patent system when it decides whether a particular invention has met the patentability requirements. These mistakes are inevitable. Given resource constraints, some might even be desirable. This Article evaluates the relative costs of patent mistakes, so that we can make better ones.

Three characteristics drive the costs of mistakes: their type (false positive or false negative), timing (early or late), and doctrinal basis (utility, novelty, nonobviousness, and so on). These characteristics make some mistakes more troubling than others.

This Article compares the costs of making mistakes of different types, at …

Tuning The Obviousness Inquiry After Ksr, Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

One of the most important and delicate judicial tasks in patent law is to keep the obviousness doctrine in reasonable working order. There are several reasons why the obviousness doctrine has been the subject of frequent judicial tinkering. First, patentability doctrines interact with each other, so doctrinal alterations that seem to be entirely external to the obviousness doctrine frequently have ripple effects on obviousness. The interaction between the utility and obviousness doctrines provides one good example. Second, the obviousness doctrine is internally complex. Cases in the chemical and biotechnology areas over the past several decades have amply illustrated this point. …

Wisdom Of The Ages Or Dead-Hand Control? Patentable Subject Matter For Diagnostic Methods After In Re Bilski, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

In 1980, the Supreme Court gave a reassuring signal to the then-nascent biotechnology industry about the availability of patent protection for the fruits of its research when it upheld the patentability of a genetically modified living organism in Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Twenty-five years later, the Court seemed poised to reexamine the limits of patentable subject matter for advances in the life sciences when it granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation v. Metabolite. But the Federal Circuit had not addressed the patentable subject matter issue in Laboratory Corporation, and the Court ultimately dismissed the certiorari p etition as improvidently granted. Five years …