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.”
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at email@example.com
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
USPTO; Myriad; Mayo; BIO International Convention; patent eligibility