首页> 外文期刊>Journal of commercial biotechnology >US Supreme Court's Decision on the Patent Ineligibility of Human Genes BRCA1/BRCA2 as Products of Nature
【24h】

US Supreme Court's Decision on the Patent Ineligibility of Human Genes BRCA1/BRCA2 as Products of Nature

机译:美国最高法院关于人类基因BRCA1 / BRCA2作为自然产物的专利不合格的裁决

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The patent laws are in the U.S. Constitution dating back from 1790 to 1793 to promote, as articulated by one of the framers, Thomas Jefferson, and protect 'any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement thereof'. Although the U.S. Congress in 1952 replaced the word 'art' with the word 'process', the Congress, as well as the courts, have strived to retain the basic philosophy of the Constitutional mandate that 'ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement'. In accordance with such constitutional mandate, and to follow the spirit of the mandate, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 boldly declared in the case Diamond v. Chakrabarty (447 U.S. 303, 1980) that anything under the sun that is made by man is patent eligible under the patent laws as long as it meets the statutory requirement of novelty (35 USC section 102), non-obviousness (section 103), detailed description for enablement (section 112) and utility (section 101/112). It is noteworthy that the framers of the Constitution not only put such language in the Constitution but to emphasize the spirit of such mandate, when the first US patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins on July 31' 1790 for 14 years, President George Washington and the Attorney General Edm. Randolph signed this issued patent followed by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson who also signed and delivered the patent to Mr. Hopkins on the 4~(th) of August, 1790. This was thus an exciting beginning of both the promotion of the inventive spirit, legal protection of such inventions for a period of time, and the economic development in the United States. This commentary deals with a patent eligibility issue decided by the US Supreme Court on June 13,2013 in the case Association for Molecular Pathology, et al v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al (No. 12-398), where the Supreme Court held that a naturally-occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.
机译:专利法在美国宪法中可追溯到1790年至1793年,以促进其中的策划者之一托马斯·杰斐逊(Thomas Jefferson)阐明,并保护“任何新的有用的艺术,机器,制造或物质组成,或任何新的或有用的改进”。尽管1952年美国国会以``程序''一词代替了``艺术''一词,但国会和法院仍努力保持宪法使命的基本理念,即``恩格里应给予自由鼓励''。根据这样的宪法授权,并遵循授权精神,美国最高法院于1980年在Diamond v。Chakrabarty(447 US 303,1980)一案中大胆宣布,在阳光下由人制造的任何东西都是专利。只要符合新颖性(35 USC第102条),非显而易见性(第103条),启用的详细说明(第112条)和实用程序(第101/112条)的法定要求,就可以根据专利法获得专利。值得注意的是,宪法制定者不仅在宪法中加入了这种用语,而且强调了这种授权的精神。1790年7月31日,乔治·华盛顿和司法部长Edm。伦道夫签署了这项已授予的专利,紧随其后的是美国国务卿托马斯·杰斐逊(Thomas Jefferson),他也于1790年8月4日(日)签署了该专利并将其交付给了霍普金斯先生。一段时间内对此类发明的法律保护以及美国的经济发展。该评论涉及美国最高法院于2013年6月13日在“分子病理学协会等”诉Myriad Genetics,Inc.等(第12-398号)一案中裁定的专利资格问题,法院裁定,天然存在的DNA片段是自然产物,并非仅仅由于其被分离而没有专利资格。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号