A look back shows that broad patents are a thing of the past and biotech inventors face heightened requirements for patentability.
References
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 US ___ (2010).
23 USC §101.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 2008-1403 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2010).
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, Nos. 2006-1634 and 2006-1649 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO and Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
USPTO BPAI, Foundation of Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Patent of WARF, Appeal 2010-001854, Patent 7,029,913 (April 28, 2010).
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simon, B., Scott, C. Unsettled expectations: how recent patent decisions affect biotech. Nat Biotechnol 29, 229–230 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1795
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1795
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
Patent portfolios for biotech inventions
Nature Biotechnology (2013)
-
Commercializing a disruptive technology
Bioentrepreneur (2011)