Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

ESTs stumble at the utility threshold

Nature Biotechnology volume 23, pages 1227–1229 (2005)Cite this article

A divided Federal Circuit upholds the Patent Office's Utility Guidelines and finds that ESTs provide too little real world utility to be patented.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Adams, M.A. et al. Science 252, 1651–1656 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shreeve, J. The Genome War, p. 85 (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  3. The first patent based upon ESTs was granted to Incyte Genomics in 1998. See Patenting ESTs: Is it worth it? Nat. Genet. 21, 145–146 (1999).

  4. Eisenberg, R.S. Academic Medicine 77, part 2, 1381–1387 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 383 US 519 (1966).

  6. Doll, J.J. Science 280, 689–690 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 64 FR 71440 (1999).

  8. USPTO. Revised Interim Utility Guidelines Training Materials (USPTO, Washington, DC, 1999). http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/utility.pdf. Example 9 is titled “DNA Fragments.”

  9. Letter of Bruce Alberts to Q. Todd Dickinson, dated March 22, 2000. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/comments/utilguide/nas.pdf.

  10. USPTO. Utility Examination Guidelines, 66 FR 1092 (USPTO, Washington, DC, Jan. 5, 2001).

  11. An invention is obvious in the US (and thus not patentable) if the differences between it and what is known in the art are such that the invention would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent field. The “inventive step” requirement is a similar mandate for patenting outside of the US.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Three amicus curiae briefs were filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit supporting the PTO. The Association of American Medical Colleges, the National Academy of Sciences, Dow AgroSciences, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, and the American College of Medical Genetics joined Eli Lilly and Company (written by P.K.D., J.J.K. and S.P.C.) to file one brief. Genentech and Affymetrix each filed separate briefs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, 46285, Indiana, USA

    Paula K Davis, James J Kelley & Steven P Caltrider

  2. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2450 N Street, NW, Washington, 20037-1126, DC, USA

    Stephen J Heinig

Authors
  1. Paula K Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James J Kelley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven P Caltrider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen J Heinig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, P., Kelley, J., Caltrider, S. et al. ESTs stumble at the utility threshold. Nat Biotechnol 23, 1227–1229 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1005-1227

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1005-1227

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing