A Biotechnology Dilemma: Patent Your Inventions (if you can) or Keep Them Secret
Requires Subscription or Fee PDF

Keywords

patent
trade secret
court
natural phenomena
law of nature
Federal Circuit
Supreme Court

Abstract

Biotechnology companies rely on patents to protect their most valuable inventions.  Patent protection helps support billions of dollars in research and development of life-saving drugs and treatments.  Protecting biotechnology inventions has become more difficult in the last few years, however, because legal trends have created uncertainty regarding what subject matter is eligible for patent protection.  Specifically, courts have narrowed the scope of what is patentable and have increasingly invalidated patents because they claim abstract ideas or laws of nature.  As biotechnology companies wait for more clarity on the scope of patentable subject matter, they face a dilemma of whether to patent their inventions or keep them secret.  Keeping inventions secret offers some benefits to companies, but may not be sufficient to protect the significant investment made in research and development.  The biotechnology industry will continue to grapple with this dilemma until the courts, the Patent Office or new legislation clarifies the boundaries of what subject matter is patentable.
https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb797
Requires Subscription or Fee PDF

References

Comments of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Responding to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Roundtables and Request for Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Docket No.: PTO-P-2016-0041, January 18, 2017.

Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), Section 101 Legislative Task Force, “Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. 101,” February 7, 2017.

David Kappos, Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, Washington, D.C., April 2016.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) (quoting the Committee Reports accompanying the 1952 Act, S.Rep.No.1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H.R.Rep.No.1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952)).

U.S.C. § 101.

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)(quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981)).

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67 (1972).

PerkinElmer, Inc. and NTD Laboratories, Inc. v. Intema Limited, 496 Fed. Appx. 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

AliceStorm Update for Q1 2017, http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/alicestorm (April 7, 2017)

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2111 (2013)(“Myriad”).

Ariosa Diagnositics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (order denying request for en banc hearing)(“Ariosa En Banc Denial”).

United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO’s”) Notice of Roundtables and Request for Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 81 Fed. Reg. 71485-71489 (October 17, 2016).

American Bar Association Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, January 18, 2017.

Comments of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) on Notice of Roundtables and Request for Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 81 Fed. Reg. 71485, October 17, 2016.

American Bar Association letter to Michelle Lee, dated March 28, 2017, regarding “Supplemental Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility."

Restatement of Torts, Section 757, comment b.

Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Section 1(4)(1985).

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.