Supreme Court Rejects Human Gene Patents

, The National Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

Reversing decades of federal patent awards, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that human genes and the information they encode are not patent-eligible.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Duncan Parks

    The distinction between DNA patents (not valid) and cDNA patents (valid) is raising eyebrows in the research community. It seems like the Court is struggling to find a distinction between "products of nature" and synthetic entities. Given the way biotech research is done, using natural products, processes, and information in new and useful ways, finding that distinction between inventions of nature and inventions of humans will continue to be difficult. More analysis in my blog post here: http://wantonempiricist.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-problem-with-biotech-patents.html

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1370812262569

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.