For Lawyers, Scientists & Other Inquisitives

An America watcher's observations about "life": Science, Law, Politics, Education, Humor, . . .

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Publications
    • Patent Law
    • Food & Drug Law
    • Pharmaceutical Sciences (some articles* would also be of interest to lawyers)
    • Random Thoughts
  • British India
  • Services
  • Contact Me
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Publications
    • Patent Law
    • Food & Drug Law
    • Pharmaceutical Sciences (some articles* would also be of interest to lawyers)
    • Random Thoughts
  • British India
  • Services
  • Contact Me

Inventions You Can Patent

August 30, 2017 by Sri Leave a Comment

After a long silence, the Supreme Court has recently (2012-2013) re-opened its thoughts on a threshold question: what kind of inventions are patentable?

By way of background, scientific principles/laws are not patentable (in legalese, “non-patentable subject matter”); what is patentable are the applications of this knowledge.  For example, law books are fond of quoting the famous equation E = mC2 as a something that cannot be patented. The policy basis behind this prohibition is that, if such fundamental knowledge is patented by someone, others cannot explore/develop the practical applications of this equation, and thus limit the “progress of useful arts”, a constitutional requirement for granting a patent in the United States.

Similarly, naturally occurring things substances and life forms cannot be patented.

Applying these legal principles,, the Supreme Court invalidated two patents, which I discuss  in this short publication.  The first patent (The Prometheus Case) deals with a method for individualization of the dose of a drug based on its (and metabolites)  blood concentrations form  from previous doses. In other words, this invention is an application of the principles of therapeutic drug monitoring.  The second patent (The AMP Case)  deals with the patenting of certain genes, and after several years of litigation in the lower courts, the Court finally concluded in 2013 that certain genes indicative of a women’s risk for breast cancer are not patentable because they are naturally occurring substances.

I welcome your thoughts and comments, especially from scientists, my major target audience.

Filed Under: Patent Law

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 


Srikumaran Melethil

Briefly, I am a pharmaceutical scientist, university professor (retired), and a patent attorney. I have also tutored 4th-11th graders in math. My CV (see link below) will tell you more about me. I created this website mostly for educational and informational purposes (please visit the publication section). Hopefully, you will find these writings useful. And, yes, if somebody can use my “skill sets”, as Liam Neeson of the “Taken” movies’ fame might say, that will be wonderful too! I can’t wait for his next movie! Really.

Curriculum Vitae

Resume

Recent Posts

  • The Debt Limit Dance
  •  Proposed Tax Bill: Middle class to be squeezed BAD!
  • Inventions You Can Patent
  • Biosimilars Litigation in the United States: Amgen v. Sandoz
  • Pharmacokinetics of NanoPharmaceuticals

Categories

Archives

© 2025 · LawandScience.com by Srikumaran Melethil