Category Archives: Patently BIOtech

Should the USPTO Allow the Patenting of Living Organisms?

US PTO

Last year, a question was submitted to the GMO advocacy website GMOAnswers about whether or not the USPTO should allow the patenting of living organisms. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, “the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable.” Therefore the USPTO cannot and does not award patents on living organisms that were merely discovered in nature. However, the U.S. Supreme Court Ruled in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that a “nonnaturally occurring Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Detailed Report Examines the Crucial Role of Patents in Genetic Testing

shutterstock_27291016

In The Critical Role of Patents in the Development, Commercialization, and Utilization of Innovative Genetic Diagnostic Tests, Professor Holman argues that advocates for weakening patent protection have fundamental misconceptions on the role of patents in genetic testing. Opponents assume that patents negatively impact patient access to genetic diagnostic testing. They believe that patents inhibit research that could lead to new or improved versions of genetic tests, and that patent holders charge higher prices as exclusive Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BIO Submits Amicus Briefs in Braintree v. Novel, Gilead v. Natco, and Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharmaceuticals

scientist-eyedropper

BIO has submitted briefs in three recent cases which could significantly impair drug and biotechnology efforts, urging reconsideration and review from both the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. BIO, in conjunction with PhRMA, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Braintree v. Novel, arguing that the majority’s decision creates an unpredictable climate for patent claims. Vacating the prior claim construction precedent which had repeatedly interpreted “a” Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , ,

PTO Patent Examinations in the wake of Mayo and Myriad

stopped-media-115x76

Biotech patent applicants are finding themselves in uncharted waters.   After the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Svs. v. Prometheus Labs and Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, companies have been trying to understand how these decisions will impact the industry. A recent study supported by BIO, in collaboration with Bloomberg BNA and the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi analyzed how Mayo and Myriad have changed patent eligibility for biotechnology. Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BIO Submits Comments on “Myriad” PTO Patent Guidance

Supreme Court - Phil Roeder

On July 31st, BIO, alongside a group of international bioindustry trade associations submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding their March 4, 2014 Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. Representing associations from Japan, Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal Belgium, the Netherlands and others, the comments reflect a deep concern among the international community regarding how the PTO is interpreting the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,