{"title":"DNA patentability--anything but obvious.","authors":"J S Dillen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The DNA-sequencing blitz, made possible in the early 1980s by improved genetic technology, has descended on the patent office in the form of thousands of patent applications for sequences. Controversy over the obviousness of certain sequences has led to a string of recent cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). In each of three opinions, the court held that DNA sequences are non-obvious, and therefore patentable. Due to a mysterious aversion by the court to apply the standard analyses for obviousness, coupled with a lack of scientific prowess, the CAFC's decisions lack both legal and technical coherence. Also, due to the time lag between invention, application, and appeal, much of the judicial rationale has been based on a level of technology a decade old--primitive by today's standards. A careful application of the obviousness standard in light of today's technology demonstrates that obviousness may yet pose a threat to biotechnologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":54350,"journal":{"name":"Wisconsin Law Review","volume":"5 ","pages":"1023-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wisconsin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The DNA-sequencing blitz, made possible in the early 1980s by improved genetic technology, has descended on the patent office in the form of thousands of patent applications for sequences. Controversy over the obviousness of certain sequences has led to a string of recent cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). In each of three opinions, the court held that DNA sequences are non-obvious, and therefore patentable. Due to a mysterious aversion by the court to apply the standard analyses for obviousness, coupled with a lack of scientific prowess, the CAFC's decisions lack both legal and technical coherence. Also, due to the time lag between invention, application, and appeal, much of the judicial rationale has been based on a level of technology a decade old--primitive by today's standards. A careful application of the obviousness standard in light of today's technology demonstrates that obviousness may yet pose a threat to biotechnologists.
期刊介绍:
The Wisconsin Law Review is a student-run journal of legal analysis and commentary that is used by professors, judges, practitioners, and others researching contemporary legal topics. The Wisconsin Law Review, which is published six times each year, includes professional and student articles, with content spanning local, state, national, and international topics. In addition to publishing the print journal, the Wisconsin Law Review publishes the Wisconsin Law Review Forward and sponsors an annual symposium at which leading scholars debate a significant issue in contemporary law.