After Prometheus, Are Human Genes Patentable Subject Matter?

Douglas L. Rogers
{"title":"After Prometheus, Are Human Genes Patentable Subject Matter?","authors":"Douglas L. Rogers","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2191523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On November 30, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. on the question, “Are human genes patentable?” For over 150 years Supreme Court decisions have excluded from the federal patent power laws of nature and physical phenomena. The words \"invention,\" \"new\" and \"useful\" in §101 are consistent with these exclusions from the federal patent power, so they are not the result of a judicially active court limiting the will of Congress. The conclusions of Judges Lourie and Moore in Myriad Genetics that the isolated DNA segments of claim 1 constitute patentable subject matter disregard the Supreme Court's decisions in Chakrabarty and Funk Brothers on products derived from nature. “Isolation” is not an inventive step to change an unpatentable physical phenomenon into patentable subject matter. Turning to claim 2, even if the isolated cDNA segments do not under Chakrabarty and Funk Brother constitute a patentable product, under Prometheus the isolated cDNA segments capture an unpatentable law of nature - the genetic code. Since no inventive step has been added to the genetic code in claim 2, the cDNA of claim 2 constitutes unpatentable subject matter under Prometheus. The Federal Circuit’s disregard in Myriad Genetics of the laws of nature threatens to eviscerate the public domain of basic scientific knowledge.","PeriodicalId":87176,"journal":{"name":"Duke law and technology review","volume":"40 1","pages":"434-508"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke law and technology review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2191523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

On November 30, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. on the question, “Are human genes patentable?” For over 150 years Supreme Court decisions have excluded from the federal patent power laws of nature and physical phenomena. The words "invention," "new" and "useful" in §101 are consistent with these exclusions from the federal patent power, so they are not the result of a judicially active court limiting the will of Congress. The conclusions of Judges Lourie and Moore in Myriad Genetics that the isolated DNA segments of claim 1 constitute patentable subject matter disregard the Supreme Court's decisions in Chakrabarty and Funk Brothers on products derived from nature. “Isolation” is not an inventive step to change an unpatentable physical phenomenon into patentable subject matter. Turning to claim 2, even if the isolated cDNA segments do not under Chakrabarty and Funk Brother constitute a patentable product, under Prometheus the isolated cDNA segments capture an unpatentable law of nature - the genetic code. Since no inventive step has been added to the genetic code in claim 2, the cDNA of claim 2 constitutes unpatentable subject matter under Prometheus. The Federal Circuit’s disregard in Myriad Genetics of the laws of nature threatens to eviscerate the public domain of basic scientific knowledge.
继普罗米修斯之后,人类基因是否可以申请专利?
2012年11月30日,美国最高法院就“人类基因是否可获得专利?”的问题签发了分子病理学协会诉Myriad Genetics, Inc.的调卷令。150多年来,最高法院的判决将自然法则和物理现象排除在联邦专利权之外。第101条中的“发明”、“新的”和“有用的”等词与联邦专利权的排除是一致的,因此它们不是司法活跃的法院限制国会意志的结果。法官Lourie和Moore在Myriad Genetics案中得出的关于权利要求1中分离的DNA片段构成可专利客体的结论,无视了最高法院在Chakrabarty和Funk Brothers案中关于自然产品的判决。“隔离”不是将不可专利的物理现象变为可专利的客体的创造性步骤。转到权利要求2,即使在Chakrabarty和Funk兄弟案中分离的cDNA片段不构成可申请专利的产品,在普罗米修斯案中,分离的cDNA片段捕获了不可申请专利的自然法则——遗传密码。由于权利要求2中的遗传密码没有添加创造性步骤,因此权利要求2的cDNA构成普罗米修斯项下不可专利的客体。联邦巡回法院在Myriad Genetics一案中对自然法则的漠视,可能会破坏公共领域的基础科学知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信