Američko patentno pravo i ljudski genom
American Copyright and the Human Genoma

Summary/Abstract: The subject-matter of this article is concerned with some implications of US Supreme Court decision on patentability of human genome’s parts. After exposing the news agencies information on solution of the protracted legal dispute between Myriad Genetics, a biotechnological company based in Utah, and American Civil Liberties Union, a NGO focussing onto the human rights, the author records the first mixed reactions of direct participants in this potentially landmarking legal case. He notes a rise of biotech companies’ shares in the main stock markets after announcing the Court’s decission – a credible sign indicating the compromise character of Supreme Court’s verdict. The case revolves on the interpretation of Section 101 of Title 35 U.S.C. setting out the permissible subject-matters of a legitimate patent claim. This subject-matter may belong to one of the four categories: machine, manufactured product, composition of matter (material), or process. In analysis of these terms’ possible meanings the author made use of the Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, a legally non-binding document intended to facilitate the assessment of subject-matter eligibility in patent applications by the officials of United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although with no legal force, the guidelines are still a useful tool for understanding the American patent law’s evolution because they contain the prevalent legal opinions based on the American courts’ precedent practice. Formal participants in this legal dispute’s last phase taking place before US Supreme Court were Association for Molecular Pathology et al. and Myriad Genetics Inc. et al.; this legal case was argued on April 15, 2013, and decided on June 13, 2013. The author highlights the insufficient consistency of the verdict denying patent protection to isolated genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, but ruling that composite DNA is patent-eligible. He concludes that this decision cannot be the last word of American judiciary on human genome’s patentability. The struggle continues; winner is uncertain.

• Details
• Contents