Biotech inventors and patent practitioners alike need to be aware of new interpretations of what is considered patentable, and draft claims that extend beyond biological principles.
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
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
35 USC §102.
35 USC §103.
35 USC §101.
Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. US Patent & Trademark Office, et al. Docket No. 09CV4515.
In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538 (CCPA 1973).
In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
KSR v. Teleflex, 550 US 398 (2007).
35 USC §112.
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 304 Fed. Appx. 866 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 2008–1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Darvill, T. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. (Oxford University Press, 2002).
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).
European Patent Convention. Article 52(1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, G. Patenting biotech beyond the central dogma. Nat Biotechnol 28, 230–233 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0310-230
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0310-230
This article is cited by
-
Gene and genetic diagnostic method patent claims: a comparison under current European and US patent law
European Journal of Human Genetics (2011)
