The High Court has upheld the patentability of methods of medical treatment.
Nicholas J has ruled that Myriad’s patent for isolated gene sequences relating to BRCA1 are patentable subject matter for the purposes of Australia’s Patents Act 1990. Claim 1 of the Patent (No. 686004 entitled “In vivo mutations and polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene”) is for: An isolated nucleic acid coding for a mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide, said nucleic acid containing in comparison to the BRCA1 polypeptide encoding sequence set.. Read More
The European Court of Justice has ruled that human embryonic stems cells are not patentable subject matter in the EU. Article 6 of the Biotechnology Directive, 98/44/EC, provides: 1. Inventions shall be considered unpatentable where their commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality; however, exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation. 2. On the basis of paragraph 1, the.. Read More
As noted previously, the Intellectual Property Laws (Raising the Bar) Amendments Bill was introduced earlier this week, following fairly extensive consultations on an exposure draft of the Bill. Patentology has now looked at some of the differences in the proposed changes to the Patents Act between the exposure draft and the Bill as introduced here. His earlier post looked at the different transitional regime for the new standards for patentability.
Patent Baristas has a guest post from Bill Bennett at Pizzeys considering the Deputy Commissioner’s recent rejection of the “Iowa Lottery” patent application. 1. A prize pool for a lottery game played among a plurality of member lotteries, at least two of which are from diverse jurisdictions, the prize pool comprising: a system of prize levels including a jackpot prize and at least first and second subordinate prizes; a super pool of accumulated.. Read More
District Court Judge Robert Sweet has ruled that Myriad’s patents for the BRCA1 and 2 isolated gene sequences are invalid on the grounds that isolation of the “pure” form of the gene is insufficient to confer patentability. The New York Times has a lengthy report. Patently-O summarises, with a link to the 152 page judgment. Prof. Crouch goes on to note that the reasoning effectively invalidate almost all gene patents but expresses the.. Read More