{"id":6731,"date":"2020-04-06T09:33:00","date_gmt":"2020-04-06T09:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/jolt\/?p=6731"},"modified":"2020-09-26T19:04:31","modified_gmt":"2020-09-26T19:04:31","slug":"patent-eligibility-of-disease-diagnosis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/patent-eligibility-of-disease-diagnosis\/","title":{"rendered":"PATENT ELIGIBILITY OF DISEASE DIAGNOSIS"},"content":{"rendered":"<a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2020\/04\/Falati_Final.pdf\" class=\"pdfemb-viewer\" style=\"\" data-width=\"max\" data-height=\"max\" data-mobile-width=\"500\"  data-scrollbar=\"none\" data-download=\"off\" data-tracking=\"on\" data-newwindow=\"on\" data-pagetextbox=\"off\" data-scrolltotop=\"off\" data-startzoom=\"100\" data-startfpzoom=\"100\" data-toolbar=\"bottom\" data-toolbar-fixed=\"off\">Falati_Final<br\/><\/a>\n<p class=\"wp-block-pdfemb-pdf-embedder-viewer\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Abstract: <\/strong>The U.S. Supreme Court effectively redefined the scope of patent<br>eligible subject matter when it decided Mayo.1 This decision focused<br>on medical diagnostic technology and has had a profound effect on<br>the biotechnology and personalized medicine industries in the<br>United States. Subsequent back-to-back decisions by the Supreme<br>Court in Myriad2 and Alice3 have made it unequivocally clear that<br>there is now wholesale broadening of the judicially created<br>exceptions to statutory laws governing patent eligible subject<br>matter. This has caused havoc in the biopharmaceutical industry by<br>not only making it a near impossibility to obtain a patent in certain<br>fields, but also by vastly increasing the number of medical<br>diagnostic patents being invalidated based on Section 101 of Title<br>35 of the U.S. Code. This major change in law has had unintended<br>consequences, discouraging research and development necessary<br>for new medical diagnostic and therapeutic methods to come to<br>market. This article analyzes the patent eligibility legal landscape<br>and focuses on emerging medical diagnostic technologies to explain<br>why the Supreme Court\u2019s recent rulings were made in error. I end<br>by discussing how Congress could either abolish, as unnecessary,<br>the non-statutory, Supreme Court-created, exceptions to Section 101, or to amend the statute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Only by doing so can our laws<br>once again encourage and reward creative thinkers and<br>entrepreneurs who take risk and innovate new medical diagnostic<br>technologies in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Author:\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0Shahrokh Falati, Ph.D., J.D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>PDF:<\/strong>&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\\\/ncjolt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2020\/04\/Falati_Final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\\\/ncjolt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2020\/04\/Falati_Final.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Volume:<\/strong> Volume 21, Issue 3<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court effectively redefined the scope of patenteligible subject matter when it decided Mayo.1 This decision focusedon medical diagnostic technology and has had a profound effect onthe biotechnology and personalized medicine industries in theUnited States. Subsequent back-to-back decisions by the SupremeCourt in Myriad2 and Alice3 have made it unequivocally clear thatthere is <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/patent-eligibility-of-disease-diagnosis\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,95],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6731"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6731"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6731\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8062,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6731\/revisions\/8062"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}