31:
256:, the question was whether the defendant, Sears Roebuck & Co., could be held liable under state law for copying a lamp design whose patent protection had expired. The Court explained that "when the patent expires the monopoly created by it expires, too, and the right to make the article—including the right to make it in precisely the shape it carried when patented—passes to the public." The Court further clarified that "n unpatentable article, like an article on which the patent has expired, is in the public domain and may be made and sold by whoever chooses to do so." Roslin's claimed clones are exact genetic copies of patent ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, they are not eligible for patent protection.
148:
270:, which originates from the donor egg rather than the donor nucleus. But the claims do not describe clones that have markedly different characteristics from the donor animals of which they are copies. Finally, Roslin argued that its clones are patent eligible because "they are time-delayed versions of their donor mammals, and therefore different from their original mammals," but that is always true of any copy of an original.
336:, large portions of the genome of an extinct animal would need to be guessed at and extrapolated from non-extinct animals, because the DNA recoverable from fossils is decayed. Therefore, the "re-created animal will not be an exact genetic copy of an animal that already exists and will have different structural characteristics than the original species." They would therefore be comparable to artificial animals such as the
231:
it was "new" with "markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility." Accordingly, discoveries that possess "markedly different characteristics from any found in nature" are eligible for patent protection, but any existing organism or newly discovered plant found in the wild is not patentable. Similarly in
300:
Burk argues that the proper test of patent eligibility for such a product as Dolly the sheep is whether the claim preempts field of the described subject matter, so that "fundamental concepts and materials, on which all inventors must draw, caught up in patent claims." He says that the Roslin patent
240:
It is not disputed that the donor sheep from which Dolly was cloned could not be patented, but Dolly is an exact copy of that unpatentable sheep. "Dolly's genetic identity to her donor parent renders her unpatentable." An exact copy of a preexisting animal in not patent eligible. The court added that
230:
claimed a genetically engineered bacterium that was capable of breaking down various components of crude oil. The patent applicant created this non-naturally occurring bacterium by adding four plasmids to a specific strain of bacteria. The Court held that the modified bacterium was patentable because
282:
opinion is hardly a model of coherent judicial reasoning, either on its own terms or with regard to the
Supreme Court's subject matter jurisprudence to that point." He insists that Dolly the cloned sheep was not something found in nature, because "genetically identical mammals are not what one finds
321:
Another nail in the coffin of innovation and a functioning patent system all because decision makers don't have enough guts to state the obvious. Being able to create something that is identical to what nature creates is an extraordinary achievement that should be celebrated, should be fostered and
305:
opinion that this informed the analysis of patentable subject matter." According to Burk, the patent would not be preemptive because its covers only sheep or other mammals "produced by the cloning process, a limitation that constrains the patent to the specific and novel implementation disclosed by
237:, the Court held that claims on two naturally occurring, isolated genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2), which can be examined to determine whether a person is likely to develop breast cancer, were patent ineligible invalid under § 101, because the BRCA genes themselves were unpatentable products of nature.
260:
Roslin argued that "environmental factors" lead to differences in shape, size, color, and behavior, that result from aging and the interaction of the animal with its environment. But Roslin acknowledged that any differences came about or were produced "quite independently of any effort of the
183:
that holds a cell's genetic material (its DNA). Campbell and Wilmut found that if the donor, somatic cell is arrested in the stage of the cell cycle where it is dormant and non-replicating (the quiescent phase) prior to nuclear transfer, the resulting fused cell will develop into an
265:
case: "Their qualities are the work of nature. Those qualities are of course not patentable. For patents cannot issue for the discovery of the phenomena of nature." Roslin also argued that its clones are distinguishable from their original donor mammals because of differences in
203:) rejected the claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 "because it constituted a natural phenomenon that did not possess 'markedly different characteristics than any found in nature.' " A patent on the method was allowed, but it is not involved in this case.
245:
For example, Supreme Court decisions regarding the preemptive force of federal patent law confirm that individuals are free to copy any unpatentable article, such as a live farm animal, so long as they do not infringe a patented method of copying.
291:
By virtue of inheriting a mature set of somatic cell chromosomes, rather than the freshly recombined set of germ-line chromosomes that would accompany natural conception, Dolly began life with shortened
604:
330:
would not prevent the patenting of extinct animals, such as the dodo, passenger pigeon, or wooly mammoth, because the cloned animal would not be identical to a natural animal. Like the cDNA in
675:
340:, which was patented. Moreover, the "fragile nature of extinct animal DNA allows for multiple avenues of differentiation" from the original, now-extinct animal, preempting none.
332:
233:
252:
clarified that a state may not "prohibit the copying of article itself or award damages for such copying" when that article is ineligible for patent protection. In
128:
41:
511:
462:
445:
195: 155. A live-born clone of a pre-existing, non-embryonic, donor mammal, wherein the mammal is selected from cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats.
695:
705:
301:
would not "capture fundamental or basic science on which future invention will depend, or if it does so, there is no indication in the
457:
171:
Scotland. The cloning method
Campbell and Wilmut used to create Dolly constituted a breakthrough in scientific discovery. Known as
571:
685:
606:
The Woolly-Mammoth in the Room: The
Patentability of Animals Brought Back from Extinction through Cloning and Genetic Engineering
353:
670:
506:
248:
188:. The resulting cloned animal is an exact genetic replica of the adult mammal from which the somatic cell nucleus was taken.
179:
of a regular body cell and implanting that nucleus into an egg cell that has had its cell nucleus removed. A nucleus is the
30:
710:
634:
700:
680:
283:
in the wild." Rather, "mammals such as sheep propagate via sexual recombination which typically renders them
172:
549:
160:
643:
168:
440:
518:
515:
466:
449:
411:
211:
The
Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed the PTO rejection of the claims in opinion by Judge
8:
469:
452:
296:. Thus, Dolly was in a genetic sense 'born old' and lived a shortened life as a result.
216:
97:
559:
267:
690:
652:
373:
226:
It is "clear that naturally occurring organisms are not patentable." The patent in
164:
73:
401:
93:
590:
191:
The patent application claims the cloned animal. Claim 155 is representative:
664:
136:
220:
176:
101:
16:
2014 decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
212:
156:
77:
377:
337:
287:
genetically identical." Furthermore, Dolly was born as an old sheep:
180:
147:
349:
293:
185:
132:
200:
676:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases
333:
Association for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
234:
Association for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
127:, 750 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014), is a 2014 decision of the
241:
related
Supreme Court rulings "reinforce this conclusion":
139:— the first mammal ever cloned from an adult somatic cell.
70:
129:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
42:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
558:(October 16, 2015). A later version is available at
630:, 750 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is available from:
388:
386:
322:incentivized, and should be awarded with a patent.
573:Dolly the Cloned Sheep Not Patentable in the U.S.
662:
594:, issued April 12, 1988, to Harvard University.
383:
348:The citations in this article are written in
326:â—Ź Student author Miriam Swedlow argues that
206:
29:
458:Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.
480:
478:
146:
507:Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.
249:Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.
663:
475:
278:â—Ź Professor Dan Burk finds that "the
175:, this process involves removing the
696:United States biotechnology case law
199:The US Patent and Trademark Office (
706:Biotechnology in the United Kingdom
52:In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)
13:
628:In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)
484:569 U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).
369:In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)
124:In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)
24:In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)
14:
722:
620:
116:Dyk, joined by a unanimous court
597:
583:
564:
542:
533:
410:(May 27, 1999); Sally Lehrman,
686:2014 in United States case law
524:
496:
487:
432:
423:
395:
361:
1:
671:United States patent case law
403:Is Dolly old before her time?
343:
273:
173:somatic cell nuclear transfer
142:
611:Wash. J. L. Tech. & Arts
155:Dolly was cloned in 1996 by
7:
10:
727:
438:750 F.3d at 1336 (citing
207:Ruling by Federal Circuit
131:rejecting a patent for a
112:
107:
89:
84:
65:
57:
47:
37:
28:
23:
711:University of Edinburgh
169:University of Edinburgh
441:Diamond v. Chakrabarty
413:No More Cloning Around
356:for more information.
352:style. Please see the
324:
298:
258:
163:and colleagues at the
152:
701:Biological patent law
681:2014 in biotechnology
591:U.S. patent 4,736,866
420:(September 21, 2008).
374:750 F.3d 1333
319:
289:
261:patentee." As in the
243:
150:
493:750 F.3d at 1336-37.
429:750 F.3d at 1334-35.
603:Miriam R. Swedlow,
561:(February 1, 2016).
418:Scientific American
217:Kimberly Ann Moore
153:
98:Kimberly Ann Moore
539:750 F.3d at 1338.
530:750 F.3d at 1337.
455: (1980), and
392:750 F.3d at 1334.
268:mitochondrial DNA
215:joined by Judges
151:Dolly (taxidermy)
137:"Dolly the Sheep"
120:
119:
718:
657:
651:
648:
642:
639:
633:
614:
612:
601:
595:
593:
587:
581:
579:
568:
562:
557:
546:
540:
537:
531:
528:
522:
500:
494:
491:
485:
482:
473:
436:
430:
427:
421:
419:
409:
399:
393:
390:
381:
371:
365:
309:â—Ź Gene Quinn in
306:the applicant."
165:Roslin Institute
85:Court membership
33:
21:
20:
726:
725:
721:
720:
719:
717:
716:
715:
661:
660:
655:
649:
646:
640:
637:
631:
623:
618:
617:
610:
602:
598:
589:
588:
584:
577:
569:
565:
555:
551:Dolly and Alice
547:
543:
538:
534:
529:
525:
501:
497:
492:
488:
483:
476:
437:
433:
428:
424:
417:
407:
400:
396:
391:
384:
367:
366:
362:
346:
276:
209:
145:
135:sheep known as
17:
12:
11:
5:
724:
714:
713:
708:
703:
698:
693:
688:
683:
678:
673:
659:
658:
644:Google Scholar
622:
621:External links
619:
616:
615:
596:
582:
580:(May 8, 2014).
563:
556:J. Law Biosci.
541:
532:
523:
495:
486:
474:
431:
422:
394:
382:
359:
358:
345:
342:
275:
272:
208:
205:
197:
196:
167:, part of the
161:Keith Campbell
144:
141:
118:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
94:Timothy B. Dyk
91:
90:Judges sitting
87:
86:
82:
81:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
723:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
682:
679:
677:
674:
672:
669:
668:
666:
654:
645:
636:
635:CourtListener
629:
625:
624:
608:
607:
600:
592:
586:
575:
574:
567:
560:
553:
552:
545:
536:
527:
520:
517:
513:
509:
508:
504:
499:
490:
481:
479:
471:
468:
464:
460:
459:
454:
451:
447:
443:
442:
435:
426:
415:
414:
405:
404:
398:
389:
387:
379:
375:
370:
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
341:
339:
335:
334:
329:
323:
318:
316:
313:deplores the
312:
307:
304:
297:
295:
288:
286:
281:
271:
269:
264:
257:
255:
251:
250:
242:
238:
236:
235:
229:
224:
222:
218:
214:
204:
202:
194:
193:
192:
189:
187:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
149:
140:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
115:
111:
108:Case opinions
106:
103:
99:
95:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
627:
605:
599:
585:
572:
570:Gene Quinn,
566:
550:
544:
535:
526:
521: (1964).
505:
502:
498:
489:
472: (1948).
456:
439:
434:
425:
412:
402:
397:
368:
363:
347:
331:
327:
325:
320:
314:
310:
308:
302:
299:
290:
284:
279:
277:
262:
259:
253:
247:
244:
239:
232:
227:
225:
221:Evan Wallach
210:
198:
190:
154:
123:
122:
121:
102:Evan Wallach
51:
18:
613:183 (2015).
578:IP Watchdog
519:225, 232-33
380: 2014).
311:IP Watchdog
228:Chakrabarty
213:Timothy Dyk
61:May 8, 2014
665:Categories
548:Dan Burk,
344:References
317:decision:
274:Commentary
157:Ian Wilmut
143:Background
78:U.S.P.Q.2d
378:Fed. Cir.
354:talk page
338:Oncomouse
294:telomeres
181:organelle
66:Citations
626:Text of
408:BBC News
350:Bluebook
113:Majority
691:Cloning
177:nucleus
58:Decided
656:
653:Leagle
650:
647:
641:
638:
632:
510:,
461:,
444:,
376: (
372:,
328:Roslin
315:Roslin
303:Roslin
280:Roslin
186:embryo
133:cloned
76:; 110
609:, 11
514:
465:
448:
254:Sears
201:USPTO
38:Court
516:U.S.
467:U.S.
450:U.S.
263:Funk
219:and
80:1668
74:1333
71:F.3d
69:750
512:376
503:See
470:127
463:333
453:303
446:447
285:not
667::
576:,
554:,
477:^
416:,
406:,
385:^
223:.
159:,
100:,
96:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
