Analyzing the Broadening Scope of Patentability in the Advancing Field of Biotechnology
Requires Subscription or Fee PDF




The current U.S. patent system is considered to provide the broadest patent protection of all patent systems in existence, especially with respect to the biotechnology industry. Advances in science and technology have been key contributors to the growth and development of legislation controlling patent law. With these advancements have come vivid public debates on the morality of research with embryonic stem cells and the fusion of human and animal DNA to find cures for disease. Despite the rapid developments, the legislation controlling such research has been slow to progress. This paper will explore the legislative history surrounding biotechnology patents, focusing on the specific need for strong, adequate protection to promote the survival of the biotechnology industry.
Requires Subscription or Fee PDF


Adelman, M., Rader, R., and Thomas, J. (2009) Introduction. In: M. Adelman, R. Rader and J. Thomas (eds.) Cases and Materials on Patent Law. American Casebook Series: West, pp. 8-17.

Lasersohn, J. (2009) Biologics and Biosimilars: Balancing Incentives for Innovation. Testimony to House Judiciary Subcommittee on courts and Competition Policy Hearing. Arlington, 14 July.

Bagley, M. (2003) Patent First, Ask Questions Later: Morality and biotechnology in Patent Law. William & Mary Law Review 46: 496-547.

Lane, E. (2009) Shobita Parthasarathy: Battles Brewing as Public Questions Biotech’s Living Inventions. Advancing Science Serving Society, news archives. Available from:

U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 8.

Moy, C. (2011) 1. In: C. Moy. Moy’s Walker on Patents. § 1:23

Seamon, R. The Provenance of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982.The Social Science Research Network. [Internet] (2002) [cited 2012 July 10]; Available from:

United States. Congress. 35 U.S.C.A. § 122

Kowalski, T., Lu, D, Uthaman, S. America Invents Act: The New “102†and What it Means to You. In: Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2012: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing. Practicing Law Institute; 2012. P. 465-470. (Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series; 1094).

STAT. 286, Public Law 112-29 Sep. 16, 2011. Sec. 3(b)

U.S.C. § 102(b)

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 305 (1980)

Grabowski, H. (2003)Patents and New Product Development in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industries. The Georgetown Public Policy Review 8(2): 7-23.

Sung, L., (2008) Biotechnology Patent Enforcement as Illustrated by Infringement Litigation on Hepatitis C Virus Genotyping: Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Laboratories. LexisNexis Expert Commentary.

Food and Drug Administration. (2011) Generic Drugs: Questions and Answers. Resources for Consumers, 24 August,, accessed 9 July 2012.

Mossinghoff, G. (1999) Overview of the Hatch-Waxman Act and Its Impact on the Drug Development Process. Food and Drug Law Journal 54: 187-194.

Rein, F. (2009) United States: FTC Weigh In As congress Considers Generic Biologics. Mondaq Business Briefing, 14 August.

Loren, R. (2010) New Law! The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. Martindale, 12 April,, accessed 7 July 2012.

Antia, M., Gantt, D. and Lebow, B. (2012) United States Supreme Court Largely Upholds Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Martindale Legal Library 6 July,, accessed 7 July 2012.

Kogen, L. (2011) The U.S. Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 Triggers Public Debates, Regulatory/Policy Risks, and International Trade Concerns. Global Trade and Customs Journal 6(11 & 12)

McTague, A., (2011) Implementing the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act?. Practicing Law Institute, online publication 2 May 2011.

Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2010) BIO Comments on the Food and Drug Administration Approval Pathway for Biosimilar and Interchangeable Biological Products. BIO letter, 23 December,, accessed 7 July 2012.

Ware, D. and Littlefield, N., Follow-on Biologics and Patent Reform: Will They Discourage Venture Capital Investment in the Biotechnology Industry? Foley Hoag eBook; 2008. Available from:

The Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics, Inc., 653 F.3d 1329 (2011)

Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO 702 F.Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

In re Marek Z. Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1361 (2009).

Bowman, A. (2012) Genes 101: Are Human Genes Patentable Subject Matter?. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 18(15).

Steenhuysen, J. (2011) Appeals Court Overturns Lower Court on Patenting Genes. Intellectual Property Counselor 177(9) (referencing Sandra Park, attorney for the ACLU)

Jameson, S. (2007) A Comparison of the Patentability and Patent Scope of Biotechnological Inventions in the United States and the European Union. American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal 35: 195-261.

(1998) Morality Aspect of Utility Requirement Can Bar Patent for Part- Human Inventions. Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (BNA) 55.

STAT. 286, Public Law 112-29 Sep. 16, 2011. Sec. 33(a)

Sheldon, J. (2012) Biotechnology Patent Applications. In: J. Sheldon (eds.) How to Write a Patent Application. Practicing Law Institute. § 16:3:1.

Gitter, D. (2001) Led Astray by the Moral Compass: Incorporating Morality into European Union Biotechnology Patent Law. Berkeley Journal of International Law. 19: 1-43.

European Patent Convention (2007), available at

Council Directive 98/44/EC, art. 5-6, 1998 J.O. (EC).

Bryan, E. (2009) Gene Protection: How Much Is Too Much? Comparing The Scope of Patent Protection For Gene Sequences Between The United States and Germany. Journal of High Technology Law 9: 52-65.

Warren, W. (2009) Federal Circuit Limits patentability of Genetic Sequences. Mondaq Business Briefing, 12 May.

Unless specified by prior arrangement, the author agrees to the following terms and assurances:

  1. For myself and on behalf of the other authors listed on this work, I assign to thinkBiotech LLC the copyright* in the contribution for the full term throughout the world.
  2. I/we further give to the following assurances
    1. I am the sole author of the contribution, or, if not, I have the written authority of the other authors to transfer the copyright* to thinkBiotech LLC and give these warranties;
    2. I and (where appropriate) the other authors are entitled to transfer the copyright to thinkBiotech LLC and no one else would be entitled to prevent us from publishing the contribution;
    3. To the best of my/our knowledge, all the facts in the contribution are true and accurate;
    4. The content of the contribution is entirely original to me (and where appropriate to the other authors) or, if not, the written permission of the owner of the copyright in any material copied from elsewhere has been obtained for all media (all such permissions to be attached to the contribution as supplementary files);
    5. Nothing in the contribution is obscene or libellous;
    6. Nothing in the contribution infringes any duty of confidentiality which I/or the other authors may owe to anyone else.
    7. I and/or the other authors have obtained the appropriate clearances from my/our employer(s) or other concerned institution(s).
* Works by US government employees prepared as part of official duties are in the public domain and the authors are therefore exempt from copyright assignment.