Supreme Court Sends Case On Gene Patents Back To Appeals Court Following Rejection Of Diagnostic Patents
from the rethink-that-please dept
As we expected, following the Supreme Court's excellent rejection of medical diagnostic patents, it's now set aside the appeals court's ruling upholding gene patents, and asked the appeals court to review the case in light of its ruling last week. Again, this is not a surprise, but it's good that the court so quickly recognized that the two cases have similar issues, and that the appeals court ought to revisit the Myriad (gene patents) ruling so quickly. Hopefully, CAFC (the appeals court in question) will come to its senses and recognize that you can't patent genes. Either way, no matter what CAFC decides, expect that to also be appealed right back to the Supreme Court.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appeals court, cafc, diagnostic patents, dna, gene patents, genes, patents, remand, supreme court
Companies: mayo clinic, myriad genetics, prometheus laboratories
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Finally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Thus, you are a 'Twat'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Whom be this Ned person thou speak of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
"Don't be evil" was such an obvious ruse! why did we not see it before!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chemistry Lesson - 1 - What is Chemistry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Junk Patent Problem
Being a patent troll is profitable. Patents are also widely used by some companies to harass or block commercial competitors. So there is a huge financial motive to play the game. This has been going on for over 200 years. The patent bar does not even want to try to fix the patent system, they are making too much money from it. Abolition is the answer.
The patent scam has a chilling effect on entrepreneurship, then on jobs. Why would someone take the risk of starting a business, when they know they are going to get hit with a patent infringement lawsuit? Hold your political candidates accountable for job-destroying laws which they allow to stay on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
like that wheel thing? I patented it earlier under 'roundy rolling device which is meant to transport loads under an axle'. When it expires I'll just patent it again under 'device which has a radial measurement of 2*pi which rotates under the force exerted upon it'.
You could buy my competitions carts and cars if you enjoy hexagonal wheels. It's clearly just the free market at work and you freetards are ruining progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who cares if the perimeter is only 2000000sin(pi/1000000), it has 1 million sides !. One MILLION!!! Totally better than just 1.. One million times better!
Now just need to patent "many sided polygon used to compete with one sides rolling device that might for all intensive purposes look one sided but in fact isn't"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
because you're infringing on tread patents by introducing discontinuities into the periphery of a "cylindrical device intended for the purpose of rolling"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll Patent the multi-verse! Muwahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]