Do sequence patents promote biotechnology as a public utility?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 536; 86 S. Ct. 1033, 1042; 16 L.Ed. 2d 69 (1966).
Many patent lawyers, and the Federal Circuit, where lawyers litigate their appeals, have objected to the term “monopoly.” But this is really a failure to understand the nature of the patent system. From 1982 to 1986, in at least seven different cases, the Federal Circuit refused even to recognize the patent monopoly as such, literally “deploring” the use of the term, which it characterized as a rejected cliché, despite the Supreme Court's constant use of the term since the very first patent case, Evan v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 454; 4 L. Ed. 433; 3 Wheat. 454, decided in 1818, through its most famous biotechnology case. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303; 100 S. Ct. 2204; 65 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1980), up to its most recent, Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141; 109 S. Ct. 971; 103 L. Ed. 2d 118 (1989). In fact, since Evans v. Eaton, the Supreme Court has referred to the patent grant as a monopoly in a total of ninety two-cases. Since 1986, the Federal Circuit has ceased its objections and seems to have accepted this obvious truth about the patent monopoly, although some (though by no means all) patent lawyers appear more intransigent.
Butler, D. 1992. “Who owns the building blocks of life?” The Independent, November 2.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Daily Report For Executives 1993. “Intellectual Property: Laws Adapting To New Technologies.” February 11.
Butler, op. cit.
Ibid.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, M. Patents and the Human Genome Project. Nat Biotechnol 11, 736–738 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0693-736
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0693-736
