Product Of Nature And The Patent Law

To obtain a patent, the first requirement is that thing is in terms of “invention”, but not “discover”.

Pollan comes to the conclusion that natural does not exist. It is moreso a word that we(humans) nowadays have come to associate with “better”, or “good for you”. People use the word as an enchanting title. In the introduction, Pollan brings our attention in by mentioning that there have been 200 class-action lawsuits filed against food manufacturers, trying to sue over misleadingly labeling their foods as ‘’natural’’.

Jan Hughes, Plaintiff-Appellant v, Boston Scientific corporation, Defendant-Apellee., 631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011)

except that enjoyed by a virtue of a patent granted by the United States”. This quote suggests

In 2004 Mayo Collaborative Services and Mayo Clinic Rochester (Mayo) announced that they would be releasing a diagnostic test that utilizes thiopurine drugs to treat autoimmune diseases. Mayo’s announcement came after they had purchased and utilized similar diagnostic tests based on Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (Prometheus) patents. After Mayo’s Prometheus sued Mayo claiming patent infringement. This paper will examine the Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. case that refers to the patent infringement law. We will examine both sides of the case by exploring Diamond v. Diehr, Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, Bilski v. Kappos, and Parker v. Flook’s relationship with the case. This paper will ultimately conclude in favor of Mayo because Prometheus’ patents effectively claim natural laws and are therefore not patent eligible.

On the original appeal in this case, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's finding of indefiniteness under the premise that a claim is indefinite only when it is not amenable to construction or insolubly ambiguous. The Supreme Court in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments Inc. 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014) in its decision articulated the standard "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention."

In the United States, patent-eligible subject matter includes four statutory categories as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the U.S. Code. Specifically, these four categories include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l further expanded

Is a natural product that is a chemical compound or substance produced by a living organism that so happens to be found in nature. So pretty much this natural product is any substance that is created naturally in nature. These natural products can also be prepared by chemical synthesis and also played a role in the development in organic chemistry by providing challenging synthetic targets. This also entails the term natural product that has been extended for commercial purposes such as cosmetics, dietary supplements, and foods produced from natural sources without added artificial ingredients.

Syngentia wasn’t the only corporation lobbying for less stringent regulations related to the Endangered Species Act. In the past federal agencies have not consulted with the Interior Department when dealing with actions that affect endangered animals or plants. Environmental groups forced their hand in a recent court ruling and federal agencies are now required to consult with the Interior Department. Companies believe they should be able to bypass the Interior Department since they “already undergo E.P.A. approval.”

The Court’s desire in Brulotte, and in other patent cases, says Kagan, was to preserve limits on the exclusive rights of patent holders, so that worthy innovations might eventually become public property – that is, open to be copied by other companies and offered to consumers on more competitive terms. To permit patent holders indefinite rights over their innovations, the Court assumes, would promote a monopolistic hold on such innovations, favoring those companies with sufficient wealth and market power to purchase and hold exclusive rights to such patents. As Kagan explains, citing previous SCOTUS rulings on patent cases, “By virtue of federal law, we reasoned, ‘an article on which the patent has expired,’ like an un-patentable article, ‘is in the public domain and may be made and sold by whoever[sic] chooses to do so.’ [. . .] In a related line of decisions, we have deemed unenforceable private contract provisions limiting

Software patentability has been a controversial debate for a long time. Some countries, such as the United States broadly allow software patents. Meanwhile, in most countries, such as Europe and the United Kingdom, patentability of software is on an ad hoc basis, where the certain tests and approaches are adopted and shifted over time. The more pressing question therefore relates to the scope to be accorded to software patents.

Because of the interesting and innovative research findings with high commercial value and sustainability, my research has strong funding potential. My research has some unique criteria, (1) most of findings are patentable; (2) all products are organic; (3) applying biological process for the first time to reduce greenhouse gases; (3) applying new technologies to use CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a beneficial materials for the first time to produce new products; (4) producing new high nutrient rich organic fertilizers and pesticides, which ultimately protect the environment by eliminating the harmful contamination from water, land and soils. I have been successful at accumulating funding from both internal and

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. An invention in general must fulfill certain criteria in order to be protected by a patent. For example, the Patents Act, 1970 in S. 2(1) (j) defines invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. In other words, an invention in order to be patentable must show an element of novelty, must show “an inventive step”, and must be of practical use. Particularly, the Patents Act, 1970 defines “inventive step” as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, patent rights are not available for new advances that are merely obvious extensions or modifications of prior designs. Besides, the requirement of difference over prior art, there is a requirement to establish the extent of common general knowledge that exists while

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

The concept of product patent for pharmaceutical products is likely to make life saving medicine beyond the reach of the poor and deprived section of the society around the world.