5

Having skimmed though the patent, it looks like it is a patent for a weakened version of the virus, that is taking the existing virus and making it non-threatening -- it is certainly not a patent which is supposedly creating the virus. Weakened version of a virus and disease agents in general are desirable for research purposes, so that they can be studied ...


2

Yes. This patent issued on July 8, 2008--almost four years prior to the decision you cite, provided in all its glory here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf It is one thing to identify an issue, and quite another to determine its significance. A more interesting question is what would happen if this patent were litigated. Claim one of ...


1

I believe both cited documents have method claims. I see references to proteins, but not specific apparatus.


1

The priority date of this patent is Oct. 30, 2009. The expiration date is 20 years from this date or Oct. 30, 2029. I checked on the US Public Pair site and there is no patent term adjustments. As for the patent itself, what is covered is described in the claims. There is only one independent claim. A composition comprising live Prevotella histicola, ...


1

Almost any material is eligible for submitting an application. In fact, government-sponsored commercial research (through the federal SBIR programs) carries a mandate as part of the terms of funding that novel inventions created under the research be patented. As part of this mandate, the government retains certain rights to the invention (this prevents a ...


1

Depends on how the claim is worded. In the US, isolated and purified DNA is not patentable per se, though it used to be. The rationale being that its a "natural product" even though isolated DNA isn't, nevertheless, the Supreme Court said the differences weren't great enough to make it patentable. cDNA by contrast is patentable. However, specific uses for ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible