A Biotechnology Dilemma: Patent Your Inventions (if you can) or Keep Them Secret
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb797Keywords:
patent, trade secret, court, natural phenomena, law of nature, Federal Circuit, Supreme CourtAbstract
Biotechnology companies rely on patents to protect their most valuable inventions. Patent protection helps support billions of dollars in research and development of life-saving drugs and treatments. Protecting biotechnology inventions has become more difficult in the last few years, however, because legal trends have created uncertainty regarding what subject matter is eligible for patent protection. Specifically, courts have narrowed the scope of what is patentable and have increasingly invalidated patents because they claim abstract ideas or laws of nature. As biotechnology companies wait for more clarity on the scope of patentable subject matter, they face a dilemma of whether to patent their inventions or keep them secret. Keeping inventions secret offers some benefits to companies, but may not be sufficient to protect the significant investment made in research and development. The biotechnology industry will continue to grapple with this dilemma until the courts, the Patent Office or new legislation clarifies the boundaries of what subject matter is patentable.References
Comments of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Responding to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Roundtables and Request for Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Docket No.: PTO-P-2016-0041, January 18, 2017.
Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), Section 101 Legislative Task Force, “Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. 101,” February 7, 2017.
David Kappos, Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, Washington, D.C., April 2016.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) (quoting the Committee Reports accompanying the 1952 Act, S.Rep.No.1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H.R.Rep.No.1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952)).
U.S.C. § 101.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)(quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981)).
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67 (1972).
PerkinElmer, Inc. and NTD Laboratories, Inc. v. Intema Limited, 496 Fed. Appx. 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
AliceStorm Update for Q1 2017, http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/alicestorm (April 7, 2017)
Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2111 (2013)(“Myriad”).
Ariosa Diagnositics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (order denying request for en banc hearing)(“Ariosa En Banc Denial”).
United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO’s”) Notice of Roundtables and Request for Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 81 Fed. Reg. 71485-71489 (October 17, 2016).
American Bar Association Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, January 18, 2017.
Comments of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) on Notice of Roundtables and Request for Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 81 Fed. Reg. 71485, October 17, 2016.
American Bar Association letter to Michelle Lee, dated March 28, 2017, regarding “Supplemental Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility."
Restatement of Torts, Section 757, comment b.
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Section 1(4)(1985).
