Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:34:56.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Developments in Health Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Harvard Law & Health Care Society
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On June 20,1991, Dr. Craig Venter, then a molecular biologist at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a member agency of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), revealed that the NIH was filing an application with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to patent 351 genetic fragments sequenced from brain tissues. The first of many applications filed by the NIH during the next two years, the agency also applied to patent the complete set of genes encompassing each fragment. These applications were filed despite the fact that the full gene sequences, their protein products, and their functions were still unknown (several genetic fragments make up a gene, and these fragments code for protein those products that have physiological functions; an example of such a product is insulin).

Type
Recent Developments in Health Law
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Summer 1994 , pp. 179 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Argoudelis v. De Boer, 434 F.2d 1390, 1394 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (Baldwin, J., concurring).Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 306, note 3.Google Scholar
Id. at 308–09.Google Scholar
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Incolcant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), at 310.Google Scholar
Id. at 309.Google Scholar
In re Bergy, 563 F.2d 1031 (C.C.P.A. 1977) at 1035, vacated sub nom., Parker v. Bergy, 438 U.S. 902 (1978), on remand, In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A.), cert. granted sub nom., Barker v. Bergy, 444 U.S. 924 (1979), vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot sub nom., Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 444 U.S. 1028 (1980). Other cases include Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co., 189 F. 95 (C.C.S.D. N.Y. 1912), aff'd 196 F. 496 (2d Cir. 1912) and Merck & Co. v. Olin Matheison Chemical Corp., 253 F.2d 156, 161 (4th Cir. 1958).Google Scholar
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 534–35 (1966).Google Scholar
“What the Patent Office Report Says,” Science, 258 (1993): 210.Google Scholar
Federal Technology Transfer Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 3710 d):Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher, “Genome Project Goes Commercial,” Science, 259 (1993): 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar