Unsettled expectations: how recent patent decisions affect biotech

Journal name:
Nature Biotechnology
Volume:
29,
Pages:
229–230
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nbt.1795
Published online

A look back shows that broad patents are a thing of the past and biotech inventors face heightened requirements for patentability.

References

  1. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 US ___ (2010).
  2. 23 USC §101.
  3. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 2008-1403 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2010).
  4. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, Nos. 2006-1634 and 2006-1649 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
  5. Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO and Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
  6. In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
  7. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
  8. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
  9. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
  10. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
  11. USPTO BPAI, Foundation of Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Patent of WARF, Appeal 2010-001854, Patent 7,029,913 (April 28, 2010).
  12. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Brenda M. Simon is at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, California, USA, and is a non-resident fellow at the Stanford University Center for Law and the Biosciences, Stanford, California, USA;

    • Christopher T Scott
  2. Christopher T. Scott is at the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford, California, USA.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to:

Author details

Additional data