Welcome to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
Case Law Database
Intellectual Property and Public Health
- Read more about Pharmaceutical Management Agency Limited v Commissioner of Patents, [1999] (New Zealand Court of Appeal (NZCA) 330)
The Court ruled that New Zealand is bound by the TRIPS Agreement that obliges it to provide patent protection for all inventions, without discrimination. In the view of the Court, claims on the use of a known compound for the manufacture of pharmaceutical compositions in which the compound exhibits previously unknown therapeutic activity are inventions.
Case Summary
Document
Pharmaceutical Management Agency Limited v Commissioner of Patents New Zealand 1999.pdf
Decision Link
On 1 April 2013, the Supreme Court of India confirmed the rejection by the Indian Patent Office of a patent application filed by Swiss drug maker Novartis on the anti-cancer medicament “Glivec”. The Supreme Court considered that Glivec did not qualify as a patentable “invention” under Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act.
Case Summary
Document
Decision Link
- Read more about Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc (Supreme Court of the United States, 566 U. S., 2012.)
The Supreme Court of the United States decided that:
Case Summary
Document
Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories US Supreme Court 2012.pdf
Decision Link
- Read more about EISAI/Second medical indication G 05/83 [1979-85] EPOR B241 (1985) (European Patent Office, Enlarged Board of Appeal)
The Enlarged Board of Appeal decided on the 5th December 1984 on the question of novelty and second medical indications. It held that a patent must not be granted for claims directed to the use of a substance or composition for the treatment of the human or animal body by therapy. However, a patent may be granted with claims directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application (“Swiss claim”).
Case Summary
Document
EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Decision on Second medical indication 1985.pdf
Decision Link
- Read more about Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals to grant a patent on a process using an abstract formula. It therewith held that an invention in the form of a process including an as such not patentable element is patent-eligible if it meets the requirements of patentability as a whole.
Case Summary
Document
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. Supreme Court 175 (1981).pdf
- Read more about Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
On 17 March 1980, the United States Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals to grant a patent for a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil (Pseudomonas putida). The Supreme Court therewith established that whether or not an invention is a living thing is irrelevant to the question of its patentability.
Case Summary
Document
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. Supreme Court 303 (1980).pdf
- Read more about Bilski et al. v. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual property and Director, Patent and Trademark office 130 S.Ct. 3218 (28 June 2010)
The U.S. Supreme Courtaffirmed on 28 June 2010 the rejection by the Federal Circuit of a patent application concerning a claimed invention which explains a hedging and investment strategy in an energy market. It held that the abstract strategy was not patentable subject matter.
Case Summary
Document
Bilski et al. v. Kappos, U.S. Supreme Court 2010.pdf
Decision Link
- Read more about Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. et al., 569 U.S. 12-398 (13 June 2013)
The U.S. Supreme Courtdecided on 13 June 2013 unanimously that isolated naturally occurring genes are not patent eligible subject matter. Synthetically created composite DNA, however, is patent eligible.
Case Summary
Document
Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, U.S. Supreme Court 2013.pdf
- Read more about iNO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc. (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2019)
In this decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitruled on the patent eligibility of a claim concerning a natural phenomenon. To evaluate the patentability, the Court utilized the criteria developed in previous case law to determine a) whether the claim is directed to a natural process/phenomenon; b) if so, whether the claim contains an eligible subject matter that can transform the claim itself into a patent eligible one.
Case Summary
Document
iNO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution United States Court of Appeals 2019.pdf
Subscribe to Patentable subject matter (invention)
