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
Voluntary pledges to make intellectual property broadly available to address urgent public health crises can overcome administrative and legal hurdles faced by more elaborate legal arrangements such as patent pools and achieve greater acceptance than governmental compulsory licensing.
Obtaining patent protection for microbiome therapeutics has been affected profoundly by the US Supreme Court decisions in Myriad and Mayo, which redefined the scope of which natural phenomena, including microbiome therapeutics, are patent eligible.
Bioprinted 3D and 4D tissues and organs are expected to revolutionize the biomedical field, eliminating the need for laboratory animals, but little is known about the future impacts of these technologies on drug development.
On the sixth anniversary of Mayo v. Prometheus, what impact has the US Supreme Court decision had on patent subject-matter eligibility and the prosecution of biotech-related patent applications before the US Patent and Trademark Office?
Though a patent's protection scope should be based on the content of the claims and written description, determining the protection scope of a biosequence patent has always been a controversial issue in practice.