A look back shows that broad patents are a thing of the past and biotech inventors face heightened requirements for patentability.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 US ___ (2010).
23 USC §101.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 2008-1403 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2010).
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, Nos. 2006-1634 and 2006-1649 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO and Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
USPTO BPAI, Foundation of Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Patent of WARF, Appeal 2010-001854, Patent 7,029,913 (April 28, 2010).
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simon, B., Scott, C. Unsettled expectations: how recent patent decisions affect biotech. Nat Biotechnol 29, 229–230 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1795
This article is cited by
Patent portfolios for biotech inventions
Nature Biotechnology (2013)
Commercializing a disruptive technology