Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Limits Patents Based On Laws of Nature

Posted by Unknown on from the there-goes-my-falling-off-a-bridge-patent dept.

New submitter sed quid in infernos writes "The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion yesterday holding that 'to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it."' The Court invalidated a patent on the process of adjusting medication dosage based on the levels of specific metabolites in the patient's blood. The opinion sets forth a process for determining patent eligibility for patent claims that include a law of nature. The court wrote that the "additional features" that show an application of the law must "provide practical assurance that the [claimed] process is more than a drafting effort." This language suggests that the burden will be on the patentee to prove that its limitations are more than patent attorney tricks.'"

7 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Cool ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does this also cover patenting genes too?

    Because I've never understood how you can patent a gene someone already had.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Cool ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which would be very interesting when applying it to plant species. I'm betting Monsanto might have an issue or two with that.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Cool ... by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The question may fall into discovering genes that already exist, vs. New ones created.

      Lets say I spend billions of dollars on a bactera that I can put in glass container that will light up like a 100 watt bulb while feeding it C02, I would want to patent those genes that I created so I can make profit off of bacteria lightbulbs. However if you just found the genes that cured cancer that some people had, and giving others with cancer that gene, I don't think you should be able to patent something you discovered but didn't create.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. nothing and everything's a law of nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whether we decide something to be a law of nature or a law of man developing as part of nature is a matter of drawing an arbitrary line.

    This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.

  3. Swinging Sideways Review? by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this mean we can finally get a review for the patent on swinging sideways on a swing? The patent in question does not merely add "apply it" to suspended mass behavior -- it adds "apply it, but sideways."

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  4. Math and software patents by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Math is the first thing I thought of when I read the headline. Math!

    How many software patents are simply applied math?

    We may have found a slippery slope that works in our favor for once.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  5. I CHANNEL FIREBALL YOUR IDEA FOR 20 by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    you can tap and un tap your "political resources".

    With more than a little irony, I'd like to mention that 'tapping' cards was patented by WoTC already: Tap (gaming)

    Patents: Advancing the state of the American technology one red mana at a time..

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!