Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome)

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome). / Minssen, Timo; Nilsson, David.

I: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, Bind 1, Nr. 3, 2011, s. 223 - 247.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Minssen, T & Nilsson, D 2011, 'Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome)', Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, bind 1, nr. 3, s. 223 - 247.

APA

Minssen, T., & Nilsson, D. (2011). Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome). Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 1(3), 223 - 247.

Vancouver

Minssen T, Nilsson D. Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome). Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property. 2011;1(3):223 - 247.

Author

Minssen, Timo ; Nilsson, David. / Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome). I: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property. 2011 ; Bind 1, Nr. 3. s. 223 - 247.

Bibtex

@article{d0adf60acae04c5e949b9cd0de0d41bc,
title = "Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome)",
abstract = "This study analyzes the context, outcome and implications of the recent U.S. Federal Circuit decision in AMP v. USPTO, which was announced on July 29, 2011. The decision, which is also referred to as the ACLU/Myriad {"}gene patenting{"} case, partially overturned a much debated summary judgment by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had held unpatentable claims to isolated DNA per se, as well as claims directed to diagnostic methods relying on the claimed DNA, and processes for cell-based drug screening. Part I first recapitulates the rather complex procedural history of this specific case and explains in more detail how it relates to the recently invigorated U.S. debate on patent eligibility and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bilski. Next, the basic outcome of the case will be summarized. The synopsis includes an account of the majority opinion authored by Judge Lourie, as well as a short description of the separate opinions by Judge Moore and Judge Bryson. Part II, which is deemed to be published in Volume 2, Issue 1, will provide a comprehensive analysis discussing the decision's actual potential implications from a broader innovation perspective, as well as the chances for an ultimate Supreme Court review. Based on the analysis, this article finally presents some general conclusions",
keywords = "Faculty of Law, Patents, Diagnostics, Myriad",
author = "Timo Minssen and David Nilsson",
note = "Published in November 2011 (Part I). Part II is expected to be published in Voume 2, Issue 1 in January 2012.",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "223 -- 247",
journal = "Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property",
issn = "2045-9807",
publisher = "Edward Elgar Publishing",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome)

AU - Minssen, Timo

AU - Nilsson, David

N1 - Published in November 2011 (Part I). Part II is expected to be published in Voume 2, Issue 1 in January 2012.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - This study analyzes the context, outcome and implications of the recent U.S. Federal Circuit decision in AMP v. USPTO, which was announced on July 29, 2011. The decision, which is also referred to as the ACLU/Myriad "gene patenting" case, partially overturned a much debated summary judgment by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had held unpatentable claims to isolated DNA per se, as well as claims directed to diagnostic methods relying on the claimed DNA, and processes for cell-based drug screening. Part I first recapitulates the rather complex procedural history of this specific case and explains in more detail how it relates to the recently invigorated U.S. debate on patent eligibility and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bilski. Next, the basic outcome of the case will be summarized. The synopsis includes an account of the majority opinion authored by Judge Lourie, as well as a short description of the separate opinions by Judge Moore and Judge Bryson. Part II, which is deemed to be published in Volume 2, Issue 1, will provide a comprehensive analysis discussing the decision's actual potential implications from a broader innovation perspective, as well as the chances for an ultimate Supreme Court review. Based on the analysis, this article finally presents some general conclusions

AB - This study analyzes the context, outcome and implications of the recent U.S. Federal Circuit decision in AMP v. USPTO, which was announced on July 29, 2011. The decision, which is also referred to as the ACLU/Myriad "gene patenting" case, partially overturned a much debated summary judgment by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had held unpatentable claims to isolated DNA per se, as well as claims directed to diagnostic methods relying on the claimed DNA, and processes for cell-based drug screening. Part I first recapitulates the rather complex procedural history of this specific case and explains in more detail how it relates to the recently invigorated U.S. debate on patent eligibility and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bilski. Next, the basic outcome of the case will be summarized. The synopsis includes an account of the majority opinion authored by Judge Lourie, as well as a short description of the separate opinions by Judge Moore and Judge Bryson. Part II, which is deemed to be published in Volume 2, Issue 1, will provide a comprehensive analysis discussing the decision's actual potential implications from a broader innovation perspective, as well as the chances for an ultimate Supreme Court review. Based on the analysis, this article finally presents some general conclusions

KW - Faculty of Law

KW - Patents, Diagnostics, Myriad

M3 - Journal article

VL - 1

SP - 223

EP - 247

JO - Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

JF - Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

SN - 2045-9807

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 34422736