N9 Science Events: November 10th, 2013.
A court's eye view of patentability
Citing Nature Biotechnology from 20081 Graham Dutfield2 last Wednesday opened a seminar at the University of Leeds on the intellectual property issues relevant to biotechnology and personalised medicine by saying that personalised medicine is becoming viable. Professor Dutfield was speaking to attendees drawn from across the University, who were invited by the stratified medicine hub. He is chair of international governance at the University of Leeds school of law.
Association for molecular pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In the case of AMP v USPTO isolated strands of DNA containing introns were eventually (June 2013) deemed unpatentable, because the genes exist in nature. By contrast complementary DNA [cDNA] created subsequently by technical intervention was held patentable. The reasoning being that the intervention had created something distinct from nature, even though cDNA in the normal course of events is part of the natural process of cell division. The US Supreme Court settled the case in June 2013.
Words, layout and code, Helen Gavaghan© All rights reserved.