Supreme Court Limits Patents Based On Laws of Nature

New submitter sed quid in infernos writes "The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion yesterday holding that 'to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it."' The Court invalidated a patent on the process of adjusting medication dosage based on the levels of specific metabolites in the patient's blood. The opinion sets forth a process for determining patent eligibility for patent claims that include a law of nature. The court wrote that the "additional features" that show an application of the law must "provide practical assurance that the [claimed] process is more than a drafting effort." This language suggests that the burden will be on the patentee to prove that its limitations are more than patent attorney tricks.'"

Re:Cool ...

[NatasRevol]

Not according to Monsanto. You can't use the genes (seeds) even if they blew into your farm.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml [techdirt.com]

Re:Cool ...

[gstoddart]

I'm neither genetic engineer nor patent lawyer, but my guess would be that what is patentable here is transporting the gene from one species to another one.

Not always. This [themarknews.com], this [nationalgeographic.com], this [discovery.com], this [theregister.co.uk] ... all of them indicate that merely identifying the gene allows them to be patentable.

Not create. Not move from one species to another. Merely identifying the existence of it.

Sorry, but in my mind they're naturally occurring and have no business being patented.

Re:Cool ...

[wintercolby]

While that may be profitable for Monsanto, it is horrible for our ecosystem. RoundupReady are genetically modified using e. coli bacteria to insert the genetic material. In order to verify that the genetic modification is successful, they also include the gene for penicillin immunity. Now we have massive numbers of organisms with the gene sequence necessary to be immune to penicillin, and more producers of GMO seeds means more genetic modifications in the wild. Monsanto has already come out with 2,4D (a component of agent orange) immune seed to prepare for the expiration of RoundupReady patents. It's also worth mentioning that a significant number of common weeds are immune to Roundup now.

Re:Cool ...

[idontgno]

Quote from third link in TFS: [patentlyo.com]

Whither Myriad: Although no action has been taken yet, I presume that the Supreme Court will now vacate and remand the pending Myriad case with instructions to the Federal Circuit to reconsider its holding that isolated human DNA is patentable. Following Mayo, the court could logically find that the information in the DNA represents a law of nature, that the DNA itself is a natural phenomenon, that the isolation of the DNA simply employs an isolation process already well known and expected at the time of the invention, and ultimately that the isolated DNA is unpatentable because it effectively claims a law of nature or natural phenomenon. One distinguishing point is that Prometheus claimed a process while Myriad claims a composition of matter. As we have seen in recent cases, the Federal Circuit already largely rejects formalistic distinctions between process and composition claims. Here, that distinction is further minimized by the reality that the claimed DNA is functionally characterized by the already well known process of isolating human DNA.

(Emphasis mine.)

Of course, that's just an observer's speculation, but very logical IM(A)HO*. We can hope that logic will continue to prevail.

*In My Amateur Honest Opinion

Re:Patent

[SuperAlgae]

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=62&p=1095&g=1256&h=14868 [phonescoop.com]

This pic is from 2006. Notice the red and black slider/switch on the side of the phone.

Re:Cool ...

[wintercolby]

I found this article from 1998 about Novartis and maize grown with antibiotic immunity, [greenpeace.org] as well as this article on Monsanto Roundup Ready cottonseed [food.gov.uk], as well as this article on GMO safety directly from Monsanto [monsanto.com] which specifically states that they build in antibiotic resistance.

Re:Cool ...

[rodarson2k]

To do genetic engineering, you HAVE to use a selection marker. When you insert a gene, you get something like a 1 in a million success rate. You need a way to kill off everything that wasn't a success, or you'll never find your needle in the haystack.

Everyone who does genetic engineering uses ampR as a selection marker, and no one says thing one about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA REQUIRES you to use ampR as your selection marker in order to pass their crazy safety requirements - in fact, i looked it up, and while it's not a requirement, it's fully sanctioned. No one says "hey wait, what about penicillin resistance?" Why? Well, there are a bundle of reasons. To quote the FDA:

a) Danger of eating food with genetic modifications: None
b) Potential to transfer genetic modifications to gut bacteria: None in the absence of selective pressure, nearly none in the presence.
c) Potential to transfer genetic modifications to soil bacteria: None in the absence of selective pressure. Additionally, almost every bacteria that you could possibly transfer the gene to already has it. Seriously, every bacteria sequenced has resistance genes to almost every antibiotic out there, they're just not expressed very frequently. It's the way things are, because plants and fungi have been using antibiotics for millennia.

The use of antibiotic resistance genes as a selection marker is not a reason to hate Monsanto.

There are plenty of others.