Mayo “nays”: The Supreme Court says no to patenting laws of nature

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Camacho
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
The U.S

On March 20, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services, et al v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc (“Mayo”) and ended an eight-year legal battle over patents covering processes for determining patient-specific dosing for a thiopurine drug to treat autoimmune diseases.  In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the claimed processes are not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 of the U.S. patent laws, and overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The Supreme Court decision in Mayo established that the machine-or-transformation test is not the definitive test for determining the patent-eligibility of process claims, including process claims that embody laws of nature or natural phenomena.  In its analysis, the Court determined considered whether the claims were drawn to patent eligible subject matter as provided under 35 U.S.C. §101 of the U.S. patent laws, or patent ineligible subject matter excepted from §101.  The Court held that the process claims were essentially drawn to the laws of nature themselves and thus fell into the laws-of-nature exception to §101.  The process claims did not cover patent-eligible processes of applying certain laws of nature.  This decision has clear implications for the biotechnology industry that go beyond diagnostics and personalized medicine. As such, biotechnology companies should consider re-evaluating their patent position and adapting their patent strategies in view of Mayo.

美國生物科技新專利適格性原則之研究

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 97-160
Author(s):  
李順典 李順典
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Natural Phenomena ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
Global Strategies ◽  
The U.S

鑑於美國最高法院重新激活了專利適格性標的要件，其認為涉及發明的自然法則、自然現象或抽象概念，除非它們也包含「發明的概念」，否則不具專利適格性，因而引發了巨大爭議。因為新專利適格性原則不當削弱了美國在創新中的領導地位，而且它們已經給美國專利制度注入了巨大的法律不確定性，所以美國應重新思考生物技術產業創新的激勵措施生物技術公司的專利適格性在不同的國家面臨不斷的改變，故必須發展保護生物技術創新的全球策略，可行的發展策略應是根據國家的法律標準申請專利。In view of the United States Supreme Court has reinvigorated the patent-eligible subject matter requirement, holding that inventions directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting unless they also contain an ''inventive concept.'' As a result, the Supreme Court has sparked tremendous controversy. Since the new patent eligibility doctrine is undermining U.S. leadership in innovation, so the U.S. shall reconsider the incentives for innovation in the biotechnologyindustry. Biotech companies facing constant changes in patent eligibility in different countries have to develop global strategies for protecting biotechnology innovations, and a recommended strategy is to file patent applications tailored to the legal standards of the countries of interest.

Disputing the Supreme Court Decision, 1857

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Moore ◽  
Jane Ann Moore
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religion And Politics ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Abraham Lincoln ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Dred Scott ◽  
Federal Authority ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

This chapter examines Abraham Lincoln and Owen Lovejoy's criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 ruling in the case of Dred Scott. The Dred Scott decision, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, affirmed that slaves were not citizens and indeed “had no rights which a white man was bound to accept.” Lincoln and Lovejoy denounced the Supreme Court's interpretation that the Constitution provided federal authority to reduce human beings to property without rights, accusing it of political abuse of judicial power. This chapter begins with a discussion of the Illinois Supreme Court's previous rulings in connection with the slave transit law, along with Lincoln and Lovejoy's argument that humans could not legally be reduced to property under the Constitution. It then considers the two men's views on religion and politics as well as their response to the Dred Scott decision. It also looks at Lincoln and Lovejoy's preparations for the 1858 elections.

The Justiciability of Paraguay’s Claim of Treaty Violation

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Fisler Damrosch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Government’s position asserting nonjusticiability of the treaty claims raised by Paraguay in the domestic and international lawsuits is disturbing. The Government’s amicus filings at the court of appeals and the Supreme Court denied that Paraguay’s claims belonged in federal court (or indeed in any court at all); at die International Court of Justice, the United States admitted a treaty violation but denied the competence of that tribunal to enter a judicial remedy. At one or another phase of these proceedings, the U.S. Government pressed a variety of arguments that (if accepted) would rule out virtually any judicial consideration of a treaty-based claim. The haste with which the Supreme Court denied a stay in Breard’s case foreclosed adequate consideration of the justiciability of such claims in domestic courts and also effectively barred Paraguay from achieving the relief it sought on the international plane.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause

1993 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Ignagni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Free Exercise Clause ◽  
Attitudinal Model ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Free Exercise Of Religion ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Supreme Court, at various times, has changed the constitutional tests it claimed to use in order to settle free exercise of religion disputes. These changes in official doctrine and the manner in which many cases have been decided have left the Supreme Court open to much criticism from legal scholars. This study differs substantially from previous work in this area. It uses a fact-attitudinal model to analyze the cases from the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts. Its findings indicate that these decisions are, generally, explainable and predictable.

Under the Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 98 (7) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
K 12 ◽  
The U.S

How would the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (presuming he is confirmed by the U.S. Congress) affect the court’s dynamics, its ideological balance, and specifically its decisions on cases that bear upon K-12 education? Is he likely to be another Justice Antonin Scalia, will he be less conservative, or will he be more so? The author looks for clues in the opinions Gorsuch has written for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Courts Begin to Appreciate Gay Rights: Romer and Baehr, 1996

2021 ◽  
pp. 86-101
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
State Court ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 6 describes two important breakthroughs in the courts for gay rights. In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Romer v. Evans in favor of gay plaintiffs from Colorado who had had their rights reduced by a voter referendum. The Supreme Court upheld state court rulings which had overturned the referendum. The Romer decision, written by Anthony Kennedy, was the first Supreme Court decision to affirmatively defend the rights of gay people. In the fall of 1996 in Hawaii a same-sex marriage trial, Baehr v. Miike, showed for the first time that the opponents of marriage equality had no scientific or empirical basis for preventing same-sex marriages from being recognized. The marriage plaintiffs won in court, but the voters of Hawaii reinstated the same-sex marriage ban. Hawaii did not become a marriage equality state until 2013.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditor Terhadap Pelunasan Piutang Dari Harta Pailit

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamdi Hamdi ◽  
Sulaiman S ◽  
Teuku Yudi Afrizal
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Investment ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Mining Industry ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Debt Payment

The concept of legal protection in bankruptcy has so far been seen as a way out of the problem of accounts receivable debt which coincides with a bankrupt debtor, where the debtor no longer has the ability to repay the debts which are past due to their creditors, so that the steps to submit a request for the determination of bankruptcy status by the Court Commerce of the debtor is a possible step to resolve the bankruptcy case. Bankruptcy was originally regulated in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK and PKPU). Furthermore, if the parties submitting bankruptcy applications, the Commercial Court Judges at the District Court are required to examine and hear the case being submitted. The research method used is the normative legal research method or library research with the statute aprroach approach and the case aprroach approach. Based on the results of the study, it is known that the form of legal protection for creditors against paying off debts from bankrupt assets in the Supreme Court Decision Number 511 / K / Pdt. Yinchenindo Mining Industry (in bankruptcy) by law becomes a guarantee for its debts to preferred creditors, in this case the Head of the Second Foreign Capital Investment Service Tax Office. Furthermore, the UUK and PKPU also guarantee the rights of creditors in bankruptcy, especially the rights of preferred creditors who have a special position with peace efforts and the postponement of obligations to pay debts of bankrupt debtors to their creditors as stipulated in Article 222 of the UUK and PKPU. The concept of the distribution of bankrupt assets distributed to preferred creditors after deducting bankruptcy fees and compensation for curatorial services where the payment process is settled based on the principle of fairness and balance set forth in Article 265 of the UUK and PKPU, where the preferred creditor parties receive the remaining payment of the receivables amounting to 62.5% ( sixty two point five percent) of the bankruptcy assets.It is expected that the Judges of the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeals at the Supreme Court consider the rights of preferred creditors who pay off their receivables first. The Debtor should be able to immediately submit a request to postpone the debt payment obligation so that the remaining outstanding debt receivables cannot be paid off to the preferred creditors through the sale of free assets. Keywords: Protections of the law, creditor, Treasures of starc

The U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

2020 ◽  
pp. 144-178
Author(s):  
Donald W. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
District Court ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
The U.S

This chapter traces Hague’s appeal through the Third Circuit Court of Appeals into the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, showing how the Hughes court’s inner dynamics explain affirmation of the district court injunction. Observing flux in court personnel and law, the chapter shows that both courts embraced the contemporaneous civil liberties revolution by defending worker speech and assembly rights, but it reveals the Supreme Court as divided over constitutional logic. Justice Owen Roberts’s plurality opinion upheld speech and assembly rights under the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone’s concurrence incorporated the First Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due-process clause, and dissenters rejected federal jurisdiction. The ruling reflected the contentious evolution of civil liberties jurisprudence, not antiboss or labor law politics.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015

2021 ◽  
pp. 191-206
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 14 tells the story of how Jim Obergefell, whose husband John Arthur was dying, sued the state of Ohio to try to force the state to list Obergefell as the husband on Arthur’s death certificate. Ohio was one of many states whose constitution explicitly rejected recognition of same-sex marriages, wherever they were originally celebrated. Obergefell won in federal district court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated his case with DeBoer v. Snyder from Michigan and cases from two other states, and overturned them all. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision of 2015 made marriage equality the law of the U.S. After the Obergefell victory, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were legally married in Michigan and then cross-adopted their children.

Evergreening patents: The Indian Supreme Court rejects patenting of incremental improvements

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Brougher
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Drug Product ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
Indian Supreme Court

On April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court in India handed down its decision to dismiss Swiss drug maker Novartis AG's attempt to win patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that incremental improvements or modifications to an existing drug are not patentable under India’s patent laws. While the ruling may have allowed India to maintain its ability to manufacture generic drugs, the ruling has increased the challenges that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies face in obtaining patent protection in India. In the long term, these challenges may prove to have far greater implications for the biotechnology industry that go beyond merely the patentability of one drug product. In view of this recent decision, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are undoubtedly re-evaluating their foreign patent strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document