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:

PATENTS

The Supreme Court’s revolution in patent eligibility law: alternative protections for biotechnology

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 227–230 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

In the face of the Supreme Court’s double-novelty requirement and the negative impact that requirement has had on biotechnology, the time has come for a new paradigm of law.

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. 35 USC §101.

  2. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

  3. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 US 66 (2012).

  4. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 US 175 (1981).

  5. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).

  6. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972).

  7. Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 US 156 (1852).

  8. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

  9. 35 USC §102(a).

  10. Thomas, J. R. Patentable Subject Matter Reform (Congressional Research Service, 2017).

  11. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

  12. Tran, J. L. J. Pat. Trademark Off. Soc. 98, 354–373 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ohlhausen, M. K. Harv. J. Law Technol 30, 103–127 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nard, C. A., Madison, M. J. & McKenna, M. P. The Law of Intellectual Property 3rd edn (Wolters Kluwer, 2011).

  15. Hemel, D. J. & Ouellette, L. L. Tex. Law Rev. 92, 303–320 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lefstin, J. A. et al. Final report of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Section 101 Workshop: addressing patent eligibility challenges. Berkeley Tech. Law Rev. 33, 551 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Madigan, K. & Mossoff, A. Turning gold to lead: how patent eligibility doctrine is undermining U.S. leadership in innovation. George Mason Univ. Law Rev. 24, 939 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. International Monetary Fund. World Economic and Financial Surveys, World Economic Outlook Database. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx (2017).

  19. Sahachartsiri, B. AIPLA Q. J. 45, 165–171 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation, SMU Dedman School of Law, Dallas, TX, USA

    David O. Taylor

Authors
  1. David O. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David O. Taylor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taylor, D.O. The Supreme Court’s revolution in patent eligibility law: alternative protections for biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 37, 227–230 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0039-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0039-9

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