Case Analysis: In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)

Aastha Tushar Mehta & Bandhan Umesh Sheth1.

  1. Students of Law, GNLU, Gandhinagar []
  2. 35 United States Code  § 101 []
  3. Envisages concept of novelty, especially 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b). []
  4. Envisages concept of non-obviousness, see Gale Peterson, Understanding Biotechnology Law: Protection, Licensing, Intellectual Property Policies, CRC Press 1993, p.101 []
  5. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction: of an appeal from a decision of — (A) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to a patent application, derivation proceeding, reexamination, post-grant review, or inter partes review under title 35, at the instance of a party who exercised that party’s right to participate in the applicable proceeding before or appeal to the Board, except that an applicant or a party to a derivation proceeding may also have remedy by civil action pursuant to section 145 or 146 of title 35; an appeal under this subparagraph of a decision of the Board with respect to an application or derivation proceeding shall waive the right of such applicant or party to proceed under section 145 or 146 of title 35 []
  6. Phenotype refers to all the observable characteristics of an organism such as shape, size, colour and behavior that, results from the interaction of organism’s genotype with its environment []
  7. 333 U.S. 127 (1948). []
  8. Id at 130 []
  9. Diamond v. Chakraborty 447 U.S 303 (1980) at 310 []
  10. Case Judgment Copy, Available at http://patentlyo.com/media/2014/05/13-1407.Opinion.5-6-2014.1.pdf []
  11. 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013). []
  12. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012); O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 112-20 (1854). []
  13. Id at 8 []
  14. Bernard Vaughan, Dolly the sheep-type clones ineligible for patent: appeals court  (23rd October, 2014) http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/us-ip-dollysheep-idUKKBN0DO1ON20140508 []
  15. A.R Chapman, Patenting human genes: ethical and policy issues, In J.Bryant, L.B Velle and J.Searle (Eds.), Bioethics for Scientists (p.265-278) Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons []
  16. Section 4(e), 2002 Amendment Act []
  17. 2002 IPLR 255 Cal H.C []
  18. Rosario M. Isasi, Bartha Knoppers, NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS REGARDING HUMAN CLONING FOR REPRODUCTIVE AND THERAPEUTIC/RESEARCH PURPOSES, (14 December 2014) http://www.dnapolicy.org/pdf/cloning.pdf []

Share this post:

Recent Posts