Intellectual Property and Emerging Technologies

Intellectual Property and Emerging Technologies

The New Biology

Queen Mary Studies in Intellectual Property series

Edited by Matthew Rimmer and Alison McLennan

This unique and comprehensive collection investigates the challenges posed to intellectual property by recent paradigm shifts in biology. It explores the legal ramifications of emerging technologies, such as genomics, synthetic biology, stem cell research, nanotechnology, and biodiscovery.

Chapter 2: Bilski v. Kappos and Biotechnology Patents: Back to the Future?

Yann Joly and Francis Hemmings

Subjects: economics and finance, environmental economics, environment, biotechnology, environmental economics, innovation and technology, technology and ict, law - academic, intellectual property law


Yann Joly and Francis Hemmings New processes will undoubtedly play a crucial role in the continuing development of biotechnology. In this chapter, developments in process patentability that have been generated by the 2010 case of Bilski v. Kappos1 will be examined with particular emphasis laid on the concept of balancing of rights: employing a patent regime as a means to stimulate innovation requires a delicate balance to be struck between the rights granted to inventors on the one hand and the rights of access of the public on the other. In most patent regimes, that balance is achieved in part by allowing inventors to patent inventions, but not ‘laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas’ [hereinafter referred to as fundamental principles].2 While this balancing act appears to be simple, in practice the application of the distinction between the two presents a considerable challenge and the topic remains the subject of ongoing debate. Slight changes to the scope of patentable subject matter can have substantial consequences for processes in the biotechnology field, as exemplified by the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, where a claim for patent protection of a diagnostic method for breast cancer was refused at first instance.3 The Court said that it sought to protect a fundamental principle.4 On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially overturned the first instance decision, with the majority of the Court upholding the validity of 1 2 3...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information