A hostile response to the USPTO’s guidelines


A hostile response to the USPTO’s guidelines

Donovan van Staden / Shutterstock.com

Sifting through the published comments on the USPTO’s Myriad/Mayo guidelines, LSIPR found them to be overwhelmingly negative.

Anyone who attended the 2014 BIO International Convention in San Diego in June was left in no doubt about which subject is dominating discussion among IP lawyers working in the life sciences: the patent eligibility of natural products in the US following the Myriad and Mayo cases.

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was therefore probably unsurprised when its request for comment on the guidelines it issued following those court decisions prompted an avalanche of replies. It may have been more surprised by how negative many were.

For those unfamiliar with this particular controversy, it begins with Section 101 of Title 35 of the US Code, the title covering patent law. The section states that: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

USPTO; Myriad; Mayo; BIO International Convention; patent eligibility