How will today’s patent law affect tomorrow’s innovation in the areas of biomarkers and nature-based products; diagnostics; and algorithms, big data and AI?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Mapping the Patent Landscape of Quantum Technologies: Patenting Trends, Innovation and Policy Implications
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Open Access 06 July 2022
-
Bringing machine learning to research on intellectual and developmental disabilities: taking inspiration from neurological diseases
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Open Access 02 May 2022
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Hogarth, S. Personalized Medicine – A Typology Briefing for CADTH (CADTH, 2016).
BIS Research. Global Precision Medicine Market – Analysis and Forecast, 2018–2028 (BIS Research, 2019).
FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource (FDA, 2016).
Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Bossuyt, P. M. M. Clin. Chem. 63, 963–972 (2017).
Breastcancer.org. Oncotype DX test. https://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/testing/types/oncotype_dx (accessed 2 September 2019).
Horak, F. B. & Mancini, M. Mov. Disord. 28, 1544–1551 (2013).
Price, W. N. Harv. J. Law Technol. 28, 419–467 (2015).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. in S. Ct., Vol. 132 1289 (Supreme Court, 2012).
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. in S. Ct., Vol. 133 2107 (Supreme Court, 2013).
Sherkow, J. S. & Greely, H. T. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49, 161–182 (2015).
Holman, C. M. George Mason Law Rev. 23, 901–940 (2016).
Schwartz, R. M. & Minssen, T. Intell. Prop. Q. 3, 189–241 (2015).
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. in S. Ct., Vol. 134 2347 (Supreme Court, 2014).
Bilski v. Kappos. in S. Ct., Vol. 130 3218 (Supreme Court, 2010).
Diamond v. Diehr. in S. Ct., Vol. 101 1048 (Supreme Court, 1981).
In re Abele and Marshall. in F.2d, Vol. 684 902 (United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 1982).
2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance. Fed. Regist. 84, 50–57 (2019); https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1119–1123 (2016).
Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K., Jordan, M. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 820–825 (2017).
Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Jordan, M. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 1146–1149 (2018).
Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K., Minssen, T. & Liddicoat, J. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 513–518 (2019).
Gold, R. E., Cook-Deegan, R. & Bubela, T. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, (192ed9 (2013).
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. in F.3d, Vol. 588 1371 (Federal Circuit, 2015).
Norton, M. E. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 1589–1597 (2015).
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. in F.3d, Vol. 887 1117 (Federal Circuit, 2018).
Fox, J. L. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 373–374 (2012).
Malecek, M.J. et al. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2016); https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sequenom-Cert-Petition.pdf
In re Grams. in F.2d, Vol. 888 835 (Federal Circuit, 1989).
Gottschalk v. Benson. in S. Ct., Vol. 93 253 (Supreme Court, 1972).
Parker v. Flook. in S. Ct., Vol. 98 2522 (Supreme Court, 1978).
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. in F.3d, Vol. 837 1299 (Federal Circuit, 2016).
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. in F.3d, Vol. 822 1327 (Federal Circuit, 2016).
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. in F.3d, Vol. 839 1089 (Federal Circuit, 2016).
EPO Guidelines, G II, 2 Examination practice (1 November 2018).
Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention 2000 as adopted by decision of the Administrative Council of 7 December 2006 (2006); http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/1DED81EC77DDD845C1257283003E3208/$File/oj1_07_se_103_195.pdf
EPC Implementing Rules, ss.27(a) and 29(2) (2006); http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/1DED81EC77DDD845C1257283003E3208/$File/oj1_07_se_103_195.pdf
EPO Guidelines, G-II, 3.1 Exclusion of discoveries (1 November 2018).
EPO Guidelines, G-II, 5.2 Exclusions and exceptions for biotechnological inventions (1 November 2018).
T0272/95 Relaxin/Howard Florey Institute (EPO Boards of Appeal, 2002).
T 0666/05 Mutation/University of Utah (EPO Boards of Appeal, 2008).
Case No. X ZR 141/13 (German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 2016).
Cole, P. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 5, a020891 (2015).
EPO Guidelines, G-II, 4.2 Exclusion of diagnostic methods (1 November 2018).
EPO Guidelines, G-II, 3.3 Exclusion of mathematical methods (1 November 2018).
Matthijs, G., Huys, I., Van Overwalle, G. & Stoppa-Lyonnet, D. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 704–710 (2013).
Illumina, Inc. v. Premaitha Health, Plc. in EWHC, Vol. 2930 (Chancery Division (Patents Court), 2017).
EPO Guidelines, G-II, 3.3 Exclusion of mathematical methods; 3.51 Schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts; and 3.77 Presentations of information (1 November 2018).
EPO Guidelines, G-II, 3.6 Exclusion of computer programs (1 November 2018).
Minssen, T. & Pierce, J. in Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics (eds. Cohen, I.G. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).
EPO Guidelines, G-VII, 5.4 Claims comprising technical and non-technical features (1 November 2018).
Minssen, T. in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and the Life Sciences (eds. Matthews, D. & Zech, H.) 26–39 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Art. 27(1); https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf
Minssen, T. & Schwartz, R. M. J. Law Biosci. 3, 365–372 (2016).
EPO Guidelines for Examination, Part G–Patentability (2018); https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines2018/e/g_ii_3_3_1.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Crespo, C. et al. How does emerging patent case law in the US and Europe affect precision medicine?. Nat Biotechnol 37, 1118–1125 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0265-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0265-1
This article is cited by
-
Mapping the patent landscape of medical machine learning
Nature Biotechnology (2023)
-
Bringing machine learning to research on intellectual and developmental disabilities: taking inspiration from neurological diseases
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2022)
-
Relieving patent-eligibility barriers in biotech with a preparation or treatment method
Nature Biotechnology (2022)
-
Mapping the Patent Landscape of Quantum Technologies: Patenting Trends, Innovation and Policy Implications
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2022)
-
Mapping the European patent landscape for medical uses of known products
Nature Biotechnology (2021)