DNA的可专利性——一点也不明显。

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Wisconsin Law Review Pub Date : 1997-01-01
J S Dillen
{"title":"DNA的可专利性——一点也不明显。","authors":"J S Dillen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The DNA-sequencing blitz, made possible in the early 1980s by improved genetic technology, has descended on the patent office in the form of thousands of patent applications for sequences. Controversy over the obviousness of certain sequences has led to a string of recent cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). In each of three opinions, the court held that DNA sequences are non-obvious, and therefore patentable. Due to a mysterious aversion by the court to apply the standard analyses for obviousness, coupled with a lack of scientific prowess, the CAFC's decisions lack both legal and technical coherence. Also, due to the time lag between invention, application, and appeal, much of the judicial rationale has been based on a level of technology a decade old--primitive by today's standards. A careful application of the obviousness standard in light of today's technology demonstrates that obviousness may yet pose a threat to biotechnologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":54350,"journal":{"name":"Wisconsin Law Review","volume":"5 ","pages":"1023-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DNA patentability--anything but obvious.\",\"authors\":\"J S Dillen\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The DNA-sequencing blitz, made possible in the early 1980s by improved genetic technology, has descended on the patent office in the form of thousands of patent applications for sequences. Controversy over the obviousness of certain sequences has led to a string of recent cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). In each of three opinions, the court held that DNA sequences are non-obvious, and therefore patentable. Due to a mysterious aversion by the court to apply the standard analyses for obviousness, coupled with a lack of scientific prowess, the CAFC's decisions lack both legal and technical coherence. Also, due to the time lag between invention, application, and appeal, much of the judicial rationale has been based on a level of technology a decade old--primitive by today's standards. A careful application of the obviousness standard in light of today's technology demonstrates that obviousness may yet pose a threat to biotechnologists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wisconsin Law Review\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"1023-46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wisconsin Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wisconsin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

dna测序闪电战在20世纪80年代早期由于基因技术的改进而成为可能,以数以千计的序列专利申请的形式降临到专利局。关于某些序列的明显性的争议导致了美国联邦巡回上诉法院(CAFC)最近的一系列案件。在三个意见中,法院都认为DNA序列是非显而易见的,因此可以申请专利。由于法院对应用标准分析的明显性有一种神秘的厌恶,再加上缺乏科学实力,CAFC的决定既缺乏法律上的一致性,也缺乏技术上的一致性。此外,由于发明、申请和上诉之间的时间差,许多司法依据都是基于十年前的技术水平——以今天的标准来看是原始的。根据今天的技术,仔细应用明显性标准表明,明显性仍可能对生物技术专家构成威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
DNA patentability--anything but obvious.

The DNA-sequencing blitz, made possible in the early 1980s by improved genetic technology, has descended on the patent office in the form of thousands of patent applications for sequences. Controversy over the obviousness of certain sequences has led to a string of recent cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). In each of three opinions, the court held that DNA sequences are non-obvious, and therefore patentable. Due to a mysterious aversion by the court to apply the standard analyses for obviousness, coupled with a lack of scientific prowess, the CAFC's decisions lack both legal and technical coherence. Also, due to the time lag between invention, application, and appeal, much of the judicial rationale has been based on a level of technology a decade old--primitive by today's standards. A careful application of the obviousness standard in light of today's technology demonstrates that obviousness may yet pose a threat to biotechnologists.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wisconsin Law Review
Wisconsin Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wisconsin Law Review is a student-run journal of legal analysis and commentary that is used by professors, judges, practitioners, and others researching contemporary legal topics. The Wisconsin Law Review, which is published six times each year, includes professional and student articles, with content spanning local, state, national, and international topics. In addition to publishing the print journal, the Wisconsin Law Review publishes the Wisconsin Law Review Forward and sponsors an annual symposium at which leading scholars debate a significant issue in contemporary law.
期刊最新文献
The October 2021 Term and the Challenge to Progressive Constitutional Theory Debunking the Stranger in the Bushes Myth: The Case for Sexual Assault Protection Orders (Mis)use of State Law in Bankruptcy: The Hanging Paragraph Story Readings in the economics of contract law: Price adjustment in long-term contracts Educating Lawyers for Community
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1