Biotech inventors and patent practitioners alike need to be aware of new interpretations of what is considered patentable, and draft claims that extend beyond biological principles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
35 USC §102.
35 USC §103.
35 USC §101.
Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. US Patent & Trademark Office, et al. Docket No. 09CV4515.
In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538 (CCPA 1973).
In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
KSR v. Teleflex, 550 US 398 (2007).
35 USC §112.
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 304 Fed. Appx. 866 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 2008–1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Darvill, T. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. (Oxford University Press, 2002).
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).
European Patent Convention. Article 52(1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, G. Patenting biotech beyond the central dogma. Nat Biotechnol 28, 230–233 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0310-230
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0310-230
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
Gene and genetic diagnostic method patent claims: a comparison under current European and US patent law
European Journal of Human Genetics (2011)