Happy Birthday Patents4Life – We Are 2!

Now some of them are not yet carved in judicial stone, being at various stages of appeal, but the sum of KSR,  Bilski (well, I guess it was more pro-patent than the strict M or T test it replaced with a test yet-to-be-determined), Ariad v. Lilly (WDR grows up), Lilly v. Sun,(broadened base for obviousness-type double patenting), Centocor v. Abbott (WDR rules),  Microsoft v. i4i (lower evidentiary bar to patent invalidation), Janssen v. Teva (no utility for hypothetical bioactivity), Stanford v. Roche (weakens Bayh-Dole Act), Myriad (DNA and diagnostics are natural phenomena), Therasense v Becton Dickinson (more ways than ever to show inequitable conduct), and the WARF stem cell reexamination (WARF lost at the Board) do not bode well for the system Jefferson hoped would help modernize the young republic.  The only bright spot on this judicial trial of tears was the Fed. Cir.’s affirmance in Prometheus v. Mayo in December that methods of medical treatment and monitoring past muster under Bilski.  And yet, even this modest decision may be reconsidered by the Supreme Court.

Still, the last time the full court addressed the issue of patentable subject matter was in 2001 in Pioneer v. JEM Ag Supply, in which the patent eligibility of plants was affirmed, and the Court refused to back down from Chakrabarty.  The issuance of the Chakrabarty patent was 30 years ago this month and most would agree that granting biotech patents has done our society a lot more good than it has rained evil upon us. Except, perhaps for the folks who are trying to block Obama’s order permitting funding for stem cell research. Or the Myriad plaintiffs. But they are in the minority. Aren’t they?

This entry was posted in About SLW and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Happy Birthday Patents4Life – We Are 2!

  1. Trent says:

    Interesting thoughts. I would tend to agree with you with the anti-patent trend. However, the trend is definitely not consistent. Most recently, I think to the RCT v. Microsoft decision where the CAFC refused to apply the abstract idea concept to the invention and instead said that “this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter.” It’ll be interesting to see how this definition pans out. I don’t see Benson or Flook going the way they did under the RCT analysis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *