Lower life forms are patentable subject matters Micro organisms, yeasts, moulds, fungi, bacteria, unicellular algaie, cell lines, viruses, or protozoa = composite of matter Higher life forms are not patentable subject matter Seeds, plants, animal Case Example: Harvard College Facts: Case involving mouse Ratio Majority: Common sense difference between lower and higher life forms. Higher life form is more connected to humans and only parliament can extent patent protection to plants and animals. Exception: fertilized mouse egg is patentable Legislation doesn’t include life form that can get up and walk away and if it doesn’t deal with higher life form than it shouldn’t be patentable. There is a common sense difference between the two. Can patent lower life forms—produced as chemical compounds and prepared and formed in such large numbers that any measurable form and characteristics should come in stat subject matter Yeast, mould, viruses, etc. ACCEPTS that fertilized egg = patentable BUT NOT MOUSE Dissent Focus; innovation, public policy, keeping up with other nations in the innovation economy. Nothing in patent act to support conclusion that non-human life forms were intended to be excluded from the definition of invention and the legislators should draw this line. Wanted to refused to interpret legislation expansively, but there are social benefits. There is nothing in patent act that non-human life was intended to be excluded from invention. Methods of medical or surgical treatment Overview New surgical methods are not patentable and flows from public policy ethical position Case example: Tennesse Eastman V Canada Ratio Not in public interest to grant a monopoly on the use of the material and thus hamper the medical profession Ways to get around it Methods of medical or surgical treatment The use of Drug X for treating cancer in humans = acceptable Swiss use claim The use of a {known product} X for the manufacture of medicine for the {new] therapeutic treatment of Y = acceptable Definition If the essential aspect of your patent claim instructs a medical professional how to treat a patent, then it is a method of medical treatment and not patentable. If the essential aspect of your patent claim instructs a medical professional on what to use to treat a patient, then it is patentable subject matter. drug is good at treating depression and good at treating OCD and is a method of treating in humans due to specific does schedule = rejection use of drug Z treating depressions in humans = acceptable Use of Z for manufacture of medicine for new therapeutic treatment of depression
Lower life forms are patentable subject matters Micro organisms, yeasts, moulds, fungi, bacteria, unicellular algaie, cell lines, viruses, or protozoa = composite of matter Higher life forms are not patentable subject matter Seeds, plants, animal Case Example: Harvard College Facts: Case involving mouse Ratio Majority: Common sense difference between lower and higher life forms. Higher life form is more connected to humans and only parliament can extent patent protection to plants and animals. Exception: fertilized mouse egg is patentable Legislation doesn’t include life form that can get up and walk away and if it doesn’t deal with higher life form than it shouldn’t be patentable. There is a common sense difference between the two. Can patent lower life forms—produced as chemical compounds and prepared and formed in such large numbers that any measurable form and characteristics should come in stat subject matter Yeast, mould, viruses, etc. ACCEPTS that fertilized egg = patentable BUT NOT MOUSE Dissent Focus; innovation, public policy, keeping up with other nations in the innovation economy. Nothing in patent act to support conclusion that non-human life forms were intended to be excluded from the definition of invention and the legislators should draw this line. Wanted to refused to interpret legislation expansively, but there are social benefits. There is nothing in patent act that non-human life was intended to be excluded from invention. Methods of medical or surgical treatment Overview New surgical methods are not patentable and flows from public policy ethical position Case example: Tennesse Eastman V Canada Ratio Not in public interest to grant a monopoly on the use of the material and thus hamper the medical profession Ways to get around it Methods of medical or surgical treatment The use of Drug X for treating cancer in humans = acceptable Swiss use claim The use of a {known product} X for the manufacture of medicine for the {new] therapeutic treatment of Y = acceptable Definition If the essential aspect of your patent claim instructs a medical professional how to treat a patent, then it is a method of medical treatment and not patentable. If the essential aspect of your patent claim instructs a medical professional on what to use to treat a patient, then it is patentable subject matter. drug is good at treating depression and good at treating OCD and is a method of treating in humans due to specific does schedule = rejection use of drug Z treating depressions in humans = acceptable Use of Z for manufacture of medicine for new therapeutic treatment of depression
Reynolds_93_Fall_2015_Ruby_G.docx