Diagnostic Kits/Page for Joint Creation of Blog Post: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
AClearwater (talk | contribs) (updated case law paragraphs) |
AClearwater (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*2 paragraphs on what we are doing (Mac) | *2 paragraphs on what we are doing (Mac) | ||
*2 paragraphs on case law (Andrew) | *2 paragraphs on case law (Andrew) | ||
**The most important legal protections of genetic diagnostic kits are trade secret and patents. While trade secret | **The most important legal protections of genetic diagnostic kits are trade secret and patents. While trade secret plays a large role, studying it is difficult because most of the information is not public. Patents are public information and they have been the focus of our current research. The gene-disease associations that researchers study can be developed into a genetic diagnostic kit and these tests are often covered by patents. Our research aims to discover the role patents play in genetic diagnostic kit development and commercialization. The Bilski case “machine-or-transformation” test provides patent protection for genetic diagnostic kits machine or transformation used in the claimed process is "not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity." In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. granted, 129 S. Ct. 2735 (2009). The recent [[http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/09/prometheus-laboratories-inc-v-mayo-collaborative-services-fed-cir-2009.html|Prometheus Labs case]] investigate the bounds of the Bilski case by looking specifically at a transformation that takes place within the human body Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 2008-1403, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2009).[[http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/patent/prometheus-labs-inc-v-mayo-collaborative-servs]] The broad interpretation of a transformation has important implications about the scope of protection that genetic diagnostic kits will receive. The finality of this analysis will be determined when the Supreme Court reviews Bilski. | ||
Check https://cbr-diagnostics.etherpad.com/1 for current progress & collab editing | Check https://cbr-diagnostics.etherpad.com/1 for current progress & collab editing | ||
Revision as of 15:18, 15 October 2009
Blog Post
- Introduction
- The field of Biotechnology including Genomics and Proteomics is a critical US industry. The emerging research in the genetic diagnostic kits presents unique challenges in intellectual property (IP). Changes in laboratory research due to actual or anticipated patent or license enforcement could signal the failure of intellectual property to spur the innovation these protections are intended to promote. It is these issues that are at the centre of our research under the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Centre at Harvard University. This research is part of a broader project being led by Prof. Yochai Benkler. In the research, we are seeking to understand the approaches to innovation with genetic diagnostic kits looking specifically at barriers to use and innovation.
- 2 paragraphs on what we are doing (Mac)
- 2 paragraphs on case law (Andrew)
- The most important legal protections of genetic diagnostic kits are trade secret and patents. While trade secret plays a large role, studying it is difficult because most of the information is not public. Patents are public information and they have been the focus of our current research. The gene-disease associations that researchers study can be developed into a genetic diagnostic kit and these tests are often covered by patents. Our research aims to discover the role patents play in genetic diagnostic kit development and commercialization. The Bilski case “machine-or-transformation” test provides patent protection for genetic diagnostic kits machine or transformation used in the claimed process is "not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity." In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. granted, 129 S. Ct. 2735 (2009). The recent [Labs case] investigate the bounds of the Bilski case by looking specifically at a transformation that takes place within the human body Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 2008-1403, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2009).[[1]] The broad interpretation of a transformation has important implications about the scope of protection that genetic diagnostic kits will receive. The finality of this analysis will be determined when the Supreme Court reviews Bilski.
Check https://cbr-diagnostics.etherpad.com/1 for current progress & collab editing