1. Moving Beyond the Myriad Fallout: The Validity of “Gene Patents” Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss Pauline Newman Professor of Law New York University School of Law Open Science Summit 2010 July 30, 2010 Berkeley, California
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. Deletions intron intron intron EXON 1 EXON 2 EXON 3 EXON 4 intron intron intron EXON 1 EXON 2 EXON 3 EXON 4 Maternal Copy of Gene A Paternal Copy of Gene A Deletion of Exon 3
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Editor's Notes
PROB in all these cases = S.Ct. didn’t really tell us why something is in or out, so even though opinion in Bilski said you can’t take a restrictive approach to what is considered patentable (as fed cir had done), it still agreed with Fed Cir that hedging method at issue in Bilski wasn’t patentable. It just plain forgot to tell us why. But there’s a powerful hint = number of times the term “preempt” was used by the court PROB w that: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT PREEMPT MEANS. Do gene patents preempt the field? Not a term scientists would use
![Recent developments: Supreme Court ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()