My understanding is that the SCOTUS verdict is regarded as not really applying outside human genes (yet), but that's just a vibe I'm getting. Other gene patents are certainly less sure now, but I think more SCOTUS cases are needed to reverse decades of patenting works of nature.
On 14 December 2014 12:48:17 GMT+00:00, "Mega [Andreas Stuermer]" <masterstorm123@gmail.com> wrote:
>The bacterial Rubisco in plant is patented.
Is that patent valid despite US supreme court ruling?That's a great point! Probably yes though, because it is heterologous expression? But the protein is wild-type ads is the DNA - so it can't be patented. Legal experts here?
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment