Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An early example of a food patent is the patent granted to RiceTec for basmati rice in 1997. [6] In 1999, a patent was filed for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that was without crust. [7] Agriculture giant Monsanto filed for a patent on certain pig genes in 2004. [8]
Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter of an invention that is considered appropriate for patent protection in a given jurisdiction. The laws and practices of many countries stipulate that certain types of inventions should be denied patent protection.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. [40] that a process patent, which Prometheus Laboratories had obtained for correlations between blood test results and patient health in determining an appropriate dosage of a specific medication for the patient, is not eligible for a patent because the correlation is a law of nature. The court reasoned "the steps ...
The U.S. Department of Justice has reversed its stance on the longstanding practice of patenting genes, now saying that genes should not be patentable. If the new position ends up taking effect at ...
Monsanto says it does not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in farmers' fields as a result of inadvertent means." In 2007, the company sued Bowman ...
It says: "[W]e do not believe that the final outcome of this litigation will have a material impact on Myriad's operations due to the patent protection afforded Myriad by its remaining patents."
The EPO's patent standards prohibits patents for inventions contrary to ordre public and morality. Patents also could not be issued for “animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of…animals”. The EPO undertook a utilitarian balancing test to make their determination on the ordre public and morality exceptions ...
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed ...