IANAL, however that being said, I agree that patent must be overturned. I would hope that if the information on this web page is accurate:

http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

then a good patent lawyer should be able to overturn it on the last condition: the non-obvious requirement.

---

http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

IANAL, however that being said, I agree that patent must be overturned. I would hope that if the information on this web page is accurate:

http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

then a good patent lawyer should be able to overturn it on the last condition: the non-obvious requirement.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154418.php

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/our-view-government-awards-patents-for-genes-stifling-research.html?loc=interstitialskip

see ''60 mins.''-CBS 4/3 Sun.
patent a gene 'of nature' ??
I need a link to judicial authorities to voice my concern.
''It's the End of the World as we know it !It's the End of the World as we know it ! It's the End of the World as we know it ! But I feel fine ''

---

see ''60 mins.''-CBS 4/3 Sun.
patent a gene 'of nature' ??
I need a link to judicial authorities to voice my concern.
''It's the End of the World as we know it !It's the End of the World as we know it ! It's the End of the World as we know it ! But I feel fine ''

Didn't the Court just deny a bunch of the patents on genes, throwing a lot of companies stocks tumbling? I found this:
"Certain claims ruled invalid by a U.S. federal court; ruling being appealed

In 2010, for the first time, a U.S. federal court found that the patent claims that had been challenged, covering the isolated genes as well as certain diagnostic methods, to be invalid, a decision that could prove far-reaching for the biotechnology field.[7][8] United States District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled that claims in seven of 23 patents covering two genes,[9] BRCA1 and BRCA2, owned by Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah, were invalid; the claims that had not been challenged still stand.[10][6] Many people working in the patent field had predicted that the courts would throw out this case,[6] but instead Judge Sweet ruled in a 152–page decision that the challenged claims had been "improperly granted" because they claimed unpatentable subject matter.[6] Because the case could be decided with patent law, Judge Sweet did not look at the challenge on First Amendment grounds and dismissed them without prejudice.[6][10]

On Mar 30, 2010, Myriad announced that it will appeal the decision." I found it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent#Certain_claims_ruled_invalid_by_a_U.S._federal_court.3B_ruling_being_appealed

Now this is the US ONLY and does not apply to other Countries, but what happens in one Country is looked at by other Countries.