KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: no obvious changes for the biotechnology market.
With the advent of molecular biology, genomics, and proteomics, the intersection between science and law has become increasingly significant. In addition to the ethical and legal concerns surrounding the collection, storage, and use of genomic data, patent disputes for new biotechnologies are quickly becoming part of mainstream business discussions. Under current patent law, new technologies cannot be patented if they are "obvious" changes to an existing patent. The definition of "obvious," therefore, has a huge impact on determining whether a patent is granted. For example, are modifications to microarray protocols, popular in diagnostic medicine, considered "obvious" improvements of previous products? Also, inventions that are readily apparent now may not have been obvious when discovered. Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, is now a common component of every biologist's toolbox and seems like an obvious invention, though it clearly was not in 1983. Thus, there is also a temporal component that complicates the interpretation of an invention's obviousness. The following article discusses how a recent Supreme Court decision has altered the definition of "obviousness" in patent disputes. By examining how the obviousness standard has changed, the article illuminates how legal definitions that seem wholly unrelated to biology or medicine could still potentially have enormous effects on these fields.
Hinneschiedt
Carl H
CH
Georgetown University Law Center, USA. CarlHinn@gmail.com
D001709:Biotechnology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000639:trends*; D040541:Marketing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010067:Ownership / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010330:Patents as Topic / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States