Utility – Section 101. 101. Whoever invents and new AND USEFUL machine, manufacture, . . . . Main Trouble Areas. No known utility (“perpetual motion machines”) Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 [ 11 USPQ2d 1340] (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable)
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
101. Whoever invents and new AND USEFUL machine, manufacture, . . .
N: Markush group
-- 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1436, 1443
Promising Experimental Results: Brenner v. Manson
Promising Clinical Results, e.g., in vitro – In re Brana
Project Initiation: Pure Concept Stage
Require-ments and Timing Issues
Terry L. Anderson & Peter J. Hill, The Race for Property Rights, 33 J.L. & Econ. 177 (1990)
David D. Haddock, First Possession Versus Optimal Timing: Limiting the Dissipation of Economic Value, 64 Wash. U. L.Q. 775 (1986).
Dean Lueck, The Rule of First Possession and the Design of the Law, 38 J.L. & Econ. 393 (1995)
David Haddock, Northwestern Law School
Most DNA: Unknown Function
EST: Short “Tag”
The good stuff: DNA that codes for a protein
A Owns SNP_1 (Or EST_1)
B Owns SNP_2/EST_2
C Owns SNP_3/EST_3