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.”
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
Start a subscription today to access the LSIPR website.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
Register here for free content, or subscribe for access to archive.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
USPTO; Myriad; Mayo; BIO International Convention; patent eligibility
