This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Perspective

Jun. 4, 2009

An Unclear Diagnosis

Section 101 of the U.S. Code is a blunt instrument ill-suited for discerning patentable subject matter in emerging technologies, write Michael Shuster and Juleen Konkel.

By Michael Shuster and Juleen Konkel

What constitutes patentable subject matter? The tension between the broad language of 35 U.S.C. Section 101 and the limitations of its scope by the courts is playing out in the context of patent eligibility of process claims. For claims directed to diagnostics and other aspects of personalized medicine, the issue has been framed in terms of pre-emption; do the claims impermissibly seek to monopolize a law of nature? <...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up