I. Treaties and Statutes

Section 101.(1999) Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.
Section 102(1994): Conditions for patentability:
Novelty
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless- (a) the invention was known or used by
others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in
this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for
patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country of in public use or on sale in this
country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in
the United States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented,
or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal
representative or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the
application for patent in this country or an application for patent or
inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the
application in the United States, or
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an
application for patent by another filed in the United States before the
invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international
application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1),
(2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by
the applicant for patent, or
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be
patented, or
(g) before the applicant's invention therefore the invention
was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or
concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be
considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to
practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was
first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to
conception by the other.
Section 103 Requirements (Nonobviousness):
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title,
if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to which said subject matter pertains.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
March 20, 1883 (international agreement for Nationals of any country of
the Union to enjoy in all the other countries of the Union the advantages that
their respective laws now grant, or may hereafter grant, to nationals).
Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in
Civil and Commercial Matters, dated
Sept. 27, 1968, 1998 (the Brussels
Convention) (Purpose of Convention is to establish process for determining
proper court for litigation involving nationals from several States)
Community Patent Convention, dated Dec. 15, 1975
and amended (Establishing a common system of law for patents for
invention is common to the Contracting States and European patents granted for the Contracting States shall be called Community
patents)
European Patent
Convention, dated
Oct. 5, 1973, effective 1978 (A system of law, common to the
Contracting States for the grant of patents for invention is established.
Patents granted by virtue of the Convention shall be called European patents.
The European patent shall, in each of the Contracting States for which it is
granted, have the effect of and be subject to the same conditions as a
national patent granted by that State)
United
Nation Convention On Biological Diversity (The Convention on Biological
Diversity's objectives are "the conservation of biological diversity, the
sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources." The
Convention is thus the first global, comprehensive agreement to address all
aspects of biological diversity: genetic resources, species, and ecosystems. It
recognizes - for the first time - that the conservation of biological diversity
is "a common concern of humankind" and an integral part of the
development process. To achieve its objectives, the Convention - in accordance
with the spirit of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - promotes
a renewed partnership among countries. Its provisions on scientific and
technical cooperation, access to genetic resources, and the transfer of
environmentally sound technologies form the foundations of this partnership.)
The United States Senate Biotechnology Caucus'
Hearing On The Positive Implications of Genome Research in Health Care.
S.2015 Stem
Cell Research Act of 2000 (Introduced in the Senate) is
part of the federal government's efforts to amend a 1995 congressional ban on
embryo research, which specifies that federal taxpayer money cannot be spent
on biomedical research involving embryos outside the womb. Last December, the
National Institutes of Health issued preliminary guidelines that would allow
government-funded researchers to use stem cells from already destroyed
embryos. If passed, S 2015 would allow researchers to use and destroy embryos
under specific circumstances.
II. Significant United States Cases
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 533
(citing Story, Note on the Patent Laws, 3 Wheat. App. 13, 24). Also, see
Justice Story's comments in the early case of Lowell v. Lewis, 15 F. Cas.
1018, 1019 (No. 8568) (C.C.D. Mass. 1817), that an invention would not be
considered statutorily "useful" if it were "injurious to the
well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society." (statutory requirement to show practical
utility in order to receive patent)
Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K.Mulford &
Co., 196 F. 496 (2d Cir. 1942)(upholding a patent for adrenaline
isolated from animal suprarenal glands)
Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.,
333 U.S. 127 (1948), (holding that a mixed bag of different bacteria, each
with a certain function, does not satisfy the novelty requirement because no
new bacteria was created, and each of the bacteria was functioning as nature
originally provided).
Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chem.
Corp., 253 F. 2d 156
(4th Cir. 1958)(upholding a patent for a vitamin B concentrate which had been
extracted from its natural form and purified
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)(Section
101 is sufficiently broad to encompass a living microorganism that possesses a
trait not found in naturally occurring organisms. However, the Court
invited Congress to amend Sec. 101 so as to exclude from patent protection
organisms produced by genetic engineering)
Ex Parte Allen, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1425 (1987) (patent claim
for genetically engineered oysters is rejected but Bd of Patent Appeals
rejects argument that subject matter is naturally occurring organism)
Notice by the Patent and Trademark Office, Patent and
Trademark office Notice: Animals-Patentability, 1077 Official Gazette U.S.
Pat. and Trademark Off. 8 (Apr. 21, 1987). Patent Office announces that it now
considers nonnaturally occurring non-human multicellular living organisms,
including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35
U.S.C. 101. A claim directed to or including within its scope a human being
will not be considered to be patentable subject matter under 35 U.S. C. 101.
Patent for the "Harvard Mouse", a genetically
engineered mouse which is highly prone to breast cancer. U. S. Pat. No.
4,736,866 (Apr. 12, 1988) First animal patent in the United States.
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (failing to reach actual issue of animal patenting because the PTO's
rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment rule and because those bringing
suit did not have standing to seek the desired declaration).
In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (relaxing obvious standard by stating that general motivation to search
for some gene that exists does not necessarily make obvious a specifically-defiend
gene that is subsequently obtained as a result of that search) Allows
patents to be granted for DNA molecules even if the method of finding the DNA
was obvious. (Note: 1995 amendment to 35 U.S. C. Sec. 103 seems to require
that both the process and the molecule be nonobvious to satisfy the
nonobviousness requirement.)
Patent
No. 5401504, USPTO, August
13, 1997 (withdrawal of patent for the use of turmeric powder as a wound
healing agent on the grounds that the use of turmeric was known in India for
centuries)
Bloodsaw v. Lawrence
Berkeley Labs, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Feb . 3, 1998.(question whether
a clerical or administrative worker who undergoes a general employee health
examination may, without his knowledge, be tested for highly private and
sensitive medical and genetic information such as syphilis, sickle cell trait,
and pregnancy)
AFG
Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co. (
February 6, 2001)
("Composed
of" Transition Term Is Treated Like "Consisting Essentially
of"; Extrinsic Evidence Should Have Been Credited
III. Canadian Cases
Appeal filed against rejection of Harvard Mouse Application,
BNA Pat. Trademark & Copyright L.Daily (Mar. 26, 1996). (Commissioner of
Patents in Canada refuses to extend definition of invention to include
nonhuman mammals primarily because of the inability to control reproduction)