Law Commons^™

Maintaining Competition In Copying: Narrowing The Scope Of Gene Patents, Oskar Liivak

Oskar Liivak

In supporting gene patents, the patent office, the courts and other supporters have assumed that gene discoveries are identical to traditional inventions and therefore the patent system should treat them as identical. In other words, they have assumed that the relatively broad claims that are used for traditional inventions are also appropriate for encouraging gene discovery. This article examines this assumption and finds that gene discoveries are critically different from traditional inventions and concludes that the patent system cannot treat them as identical.

As a doctrinal matter, this article applies the generally overlooked constitutional requirements of inventorship and originality and …

International Trade Law And The U.S.-Eu Gmo Debate: Can Africa Weather This Storm?, Michelle K. Mcdonald

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Study Of Gmo Labeling And Liability Systems In The Us, Eu, And South Korea: The Circumstances And A Future Potential For Harmonization, Moonsook Park

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

With the remarkable development of GMOs, GMO trade has also increased. The different attitudes on GMOs among the countries all over the world, specifically the US, EU, and South Korea, have the potential to create international trade conflicts. In order to mediate the conflicts, reasonable labeling and liability systems need to be established to prevent potential GMO risks. The Biosafety Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of GMOs exists to resolve such tensions, but it fails to sufficiently solve the problems and provide clear regulations concerning GMO labeling and liability systems.

A successful GMO labeling and liability system should emphasize the …

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 …

Patent Trolling--Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals Are At Risk, Robin C. Feldman, W. Nicholson Price Ii

Robin C Feldman