WASHINGTON – In a decision that seemed designed to carve out a middle ground in the legal battle over whether companies can hold exclusive rights in the use of biological material, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that isolated human genes are not patentable, but synthetically created genetic material may be patented.
WASHINGTON – Drawing a legal line to determine when human genetic material ceases to be a creation of nature and instead becomes a patentable product is not easy — even for the U.S. Supreme Court.
During oral arguments in Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the justices struggled with the question of whether the patents on two isolated human genes that indicate an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer are valid.
WASHINGTON – During arguments in a case demonstrating the ongoing tension between emerging technologies and centuries-old legal doctrines, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sought to define the limits on a farmer’s use of patented, self-replicating soybean seeds beyond a first harvest.
WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant Wednesday to make a federal case out of a legal malpractice claim arising from a patent suit.
In a major milestone in the smartphone patent wars, a federal jury has found that Apple Inc. infringed on three patents in its iPhone with regard to the camera feature and the handling and rejection of calls.
The doctrine of claim preclusion did not apply to bar a patent infringement lawsuit based on a prior related trademark protection action, the Federal Circuit has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether state law legal malpractice claims against trial lawyers for their handling of patent cases fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
In a second victory for the biotech industry in one year, the Federal Circuit has reinstated its ruling that a company’s isolation of human genetic material, and its process for using that material to determine the effectiveness of certain cancer therapies, meet the threshold test for patent-eligibility.
A jury has awarded $2 million to a man who developed a unique fuel additive several years ago and claimed his employer improperly phased him out of millions of dollars he was owed in a profit-sharing agreement.
A generic drug manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent as covering a particular method of using a drug.
U.S. Supreme Court. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. 10-844. April
» Continue Reading.