- Concurring Opinions - http://www.concurringopinions.com -
Stanford Law Review Online: Anticipating Patentable Subject Matter
Posted By Stanford Law Review On February 21, 2013 @ 10:30 am In Intellectual Property,Law Rev (Stanford),Supreme Court | No Comments
The Stanford Law Review Online  has just published an Essay by Dan L. Burk entitled Anticipating Patentable Subject Matter . Professor Burk argues that the fact that something might be found in nature should not necessarily preclude its patentability:
The Supreme Court has added to its upcoming docket Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., to consider the question: “Are human genes patentable?” This question implicates patent law’s “products of nature” doctrine, which excludes from patentability naturally occurring materials. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that “anything under the sun that is made by man” falls within patentable subject matter, implying that things under the sun not made by man do not fall within patentable subject matter.
One of the recurring arguments for classifying genes as products of nature has been that these materials, even if created in the laboratory, could sometimes instead have been located by scouring the contents of human cells. But virtually the same argument has been advanced and rejected in another area of patent law: the novelty of patented inventions. The rule in that context has been that we reward the inventor who provides us with access to the materials, even if in hindsight they might have already been present in the prior art. As a matter of doctrine and policy, the rule for patentable subject matter should be the same.
“I can find the invention somewhere in nature once an inventor has shown it to me” is clearly the wrong standard for a patent system that hopes to promote progress in the useful arts. The fact that a version of the invention may have previously existed, unrecognized, unavailable, and unappreciated, should be irrelevant to patentability under either novelty or subject matter. The proper question is: did the inventor make available to humankind something we didn’t have available before? On this standard, the reverse transcribed molecules created by the inventors in Myriad are clearly patentable subject matter.
Article printed from Concurring Opinions: http://www.concurringopinions.com
URL to article: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/02/stanford-law-review-online-anticipating-patentable-subject-matter.html
URLs in this post:
 Stanford Law Review Online: http://www.stanfordlawreview.org
 Anticipating Patentable Subject Matter: http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/anticipating-patentable-subject-matter
Copyright © 2010 Concurring Opinions. All rights reserved.