Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Biotechnology Patent Law Top Ten Of 2018 Broad Wins, Sovereignty Loses, And Patent Dance, Kevin E. Noonan, Andrew W. Torrance
Biotechnology Patent Law Top Ten Of 2018 Broad Wins, Sovereignty Loses, And Patent Dance, Kevin E. Noonan, Andrew W. Torrance
Akron Law Review
In this article, we discuss what we consider to be the ten important and influential biotechnology patent law judicial decisions of 2018. These hinged on a variety of patent doctrines. An abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for the multiple sclerosis drug Ampyra set the stage for the Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision, in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) provided guidance on how to conduct an obviousness analysis (35 U.S.C. §103). The Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision, although addressing a software invention, provided valuable insight into …
Bioprospect Theory, James Ming Chen
Bioprospect Theory, James Ming Chen
Akron Intellectual Property Journal
Conventional wisdom treats biodiversity and biotechnology as rivalrous values. The global south is home to most of earth's vanishing species, while the global north holds the capital and technology needed to develop this natural wealth. The south argues that intellectual property laws enable pharmaceutical companies and seed breeders in the industrialized north to commit biopiracy. By contrast, the United States has characterized calls for profit-sharing as a threat to the global life sciences industry. Both sides magnify the dispute, on the apparent consensus that commercial exploitation of genetic resources holds the key to biodiversity conservation.
Both sides of this debate …
The Human Genome: A Patenting Dilemma, Pamela Docherty
The Human Genome: A Patenting Dilemma, Pamela Docherty
Akron Law Review
This Comment will address the conflict between the U.S. patent laws and biotechnology by focusing on the NIH patent application.
The first part of this Comment discusses the objectives and statutory requirements of the patent system, which the NIH application purportedly did not meet. Next, this Comment focuses on the debate between NIH and its detractors. It explains NIH's reasons for its actions and discusses the criticisms leveled at the agency. Finally, this Comment presents solutions to the problems that have been uncovered by this debate regarding the patentability of genes.