Document Detail


From Bilski back to Benson: preemption, inventing around, and the case of genetic diagnostics.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21774194     Owner:  HSR     Status:  In-Process    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
The long-anticipated decision in Bilski v. Kappos was supposed to end uncertainty regarding the patentability of process claims (or, at the least, business method claims). Instead, the opinion featured a series of anomalies: The Court emphasized strict construction of the Patent Act, but acknowledged three judge-made exceptions to patentability. It disapproved State Street, the Federal Circuit case that had upheld business method patents, but could muster only four votes for the proposition that business methods are in fact unpatentable. But even though the Court upheld business method patents, it invalidated all of Bilski's hedging claims. And while the Justices agreed on one thing - a patent that "preempts" something (a mathematical formula, an approach, a commonly used idea, a wide swath of technological developments, the public's access) is bad - they failed to operationalize the concept. That problem had plagued the law prior to State Street; in the interest of preventing the same set of problems from recurring, this Article uses recent empirical studies on gene patents to tease out indicia ("clues") to supplement the machine-or-transformation test for determining when a claim is preemptive and therefore invalid. Chief among these clues is the inability to invent around claims that cover broad prospects.
Authors:
Rochelle Dreyfuss; James P Evans
Related Documents :
21616694 - From analytic inversion to contemporary imrt optimization: radiation therapy planning r...
18617714 - Out-of-sample extrapolation of learned manifolds.
15676384 - The introduction of ergonomics: a problem of industrial practice.
21814294 - Representations of efficient score for coarse data problems based on neumann series exp...
9044534 - Drug use and its relationship to other behavior disorders and maladjustment signs among...
17623414 - Collaboration: leveraging resources and expertise.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Stanford law review     Volume:  63     ISSN:  0038-9765     ISO Abbreviation:  Stanford Law Rev     Publication Date:  2011 Jun 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-07-20     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7703790     Medline TA:  Stanford Law Rev     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1349-76     Citation Subset:  T    
Affiliation:
New York University School of Law, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property l...
Next Document:  Limitations in access to dental and medical specialty care for publicly insured children.