scholarly journals After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim 'markedly different' from nature?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 820-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateo Aboy ◽  
Johnathon Liddicoat ◽  
Kathleen Liddell ◽  
Matthew Jordan ◽  
Cristina Crespo
Keyword(s):  
2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca N. Eyre ◽  
Joe S. Cecil ◽  
Eric Topor

1991 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 277-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Gomólka ◽  
B. Gomólka

Whenever possible, neutralization of alkaline wastewater should involve low-cost acid. It is conventional to make use of carbonic acid produced via the reaction of carbon dioxide (contained in flue gases) with water according to the following equation: Carbon dioxide content in the flue gas stream varies from 10% to 15%. The flue gas stream may either be passed to the wastewater contained in the recarbonizers, or. enter the scrubbers (which are continually sprayed with wastewater) from the bottom in oountercurrent. The reactors, in which recarbonation occurs, have the ability to expand the contact surface between gaseous and liquid phase. This can be achieved by gas phase dispersion in the liquid phase (bubbling), by liquid phase dispersion in the gas phase (spraying), or by bubbling and spraying, and mixing. These concurrent operations are carried out during motion of the disk aerator (which is a patent claim). The authors describe the functioning of the disk aerator, the composition of the wastewater produced during wet gasification of carbide, the chemistry of recarbonation and decarbonation, and the concept of applying the disk aerator so as to make the wastewater fit for reuse (after suitable neutralization) as feeding water in acetylene generators.


10.1038/82460 ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 1319-1320 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Richard Gold
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley

Patentees overwhelmingly lose their cases, despite a seeming host ofprocedural advantages. The same is not true of other IP plaintiffs. Why? Inthis article, I suggest that the explanation lies in the "fractioning" ofpatent law into smaller and smaller issues. Claim construction afterMarkman is the clearest example, but there are others. We no longer decidein a holistic manner what a patent claim covers. Instead, we decide whateach word of a claim covers. Because there are more and more such issues,and the patentee must win each of them, patentees face a form of multiplejeopardy. It is ironic that patent claims, developed to broaden andstrengthen the patent right, have instead become obstacles to thepatentee's success.


2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 609-614
Author(s):  
Alan J. Morrison
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Carlo A. Piria ◽  
Carlo A. Piria

The patent law and pharma laws and regulations need to be coordinated. The interpretative proposal of the author is that a patent claim aiming at protecting the invention as a medicinal product must necessarily be expressed using the appropriate terms provided for by the laws and regulations concerning the industrial medicinal product, such as “medicinal product” and “active substance”; otherwise the patent may not be considered as covering a “medicinal product” or an “active substance”. Moreover, as a consequence, the presentation of a product in a patent claim as a medicinal product or an active substance implies that the enforceability of such claim is conditioned upon the demonstration of the efficacy and safety of the product through the preparation and approval by the competent authorities of a dossier of pharmacological and clinical trials. The legal system taken into consideration by the author is the European one, but the interpretative proposal is, mutatis mutandis, applicable to other systems of law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document