Comments on: ACLU Mob Attacks Breast Cancer Test Patent

By: Patent Baristas » ACLU/PUBPAT Gene Patent Challenge Moves Ahead

Patent Baristas » ACLU/PUBPAT Gene Patent Challenge Moves Ahead — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:59:37 +0000

[...] lawsuit, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the [...]

By: Patent Baristas » NIH Shocked To Find Patents Work As Expected

Patent Baristas » NIH Shocked To Find Patents Work As Expected — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:16:22 +0000

[...] correlations, or the naturally occurring products [they] specify.” More recently, the ACLU filed a suit claiming that patenting genes is unconstitutional for limiting research and the free flow of information, and as a result violates the First [...]

By: Patent Baristas » Friday IP Round-Up: Baby Bomb Edition

Patent Baristas » Friday IP Round-Up: Baby Bomb Edition — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:45:50 +0000

[...] quoting Christopher Hansen, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in regards to their lawsuit to have gene patents declared unconstitutional. The Patent Office estimated that about 52,800 patents have been granted related to genes, [...]

By: Genes Under Law « Beyond The Bench

Genes Under Law « Beyond The Bench — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:33:05 +0000

[...] ACLU Mob Attacks Breast Cancer Test Patent [...]

By: Paul F. Morgan

Paul F. Morgan — Sat, 23 May 2009 18:07:48 +0000

The merits of this legal debate are not helped by selectively quoting only one line of the Chakrabarty decision out of context without its express qualifier: “This is not to suggest that § 101 has no limits, or that it embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 409 U. S. 67 (1972); Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 333 U. S. 130 (1948); 56 U. S. 112-121 (1854); 55 U. S. 175 (1853). Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.”