The end of the Signals article has a hook. (Emphasis mine.)
According to Stanford Law's Barton, the patent case that could have the biggest impact on biotech in the near future doesn't concern biological molecules at all: It's about algorithms.
John Barton
In AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc. (1999), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the patentability of software. (The case concerned software governing long-distance telephone calls. The patented process aids long-distance carriers in providing differential billing for subscribers, depending on whether they call someone with the same or a different long-distance carrier. AT&T's process uses subscribers' primary interexchange carriers [PIC] as data.)
The Supreme Court had already affirmed that "even though a mathematical algorithm is not patentable in isolation, a process that applies an equation to a new and useful end is at the very least not barred at the threshold." And the Federal Circuit supported that decision in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc. (1998): "A mathematical algorithm may be an integral part of patentable subject matter such as a machine or process if the claimed invention as a whole is applied in a useful manner."
Importantly, the Court also addressed whether there need be a physical requirement for software to be patentable. "The mere fact that a claimed invention involves inputting numbers, calculating numbers, outputting numbers, and storing numbers, in and of itself, would not render it nonstatutory subject matter unless, of course, its operation does not produce a useful, concrete and tangible result."
According to Barton, this ruling means that it will be possible to get a patent on an abstract procedure or an algorithm. And it will impact biotechnology. For instance, he continued, "We will quickly see patents on computational methods for calculating protein folding." According to Barton, "This case is saying that it's a lot harder to draw the line between the discovery of a scientific principle and the development of a patentable invention."
(Putting aside for the moment--how about forever--whether lawyers make good investors) Is Prof. Barton giving us a peek at something here? I presume by "calculating protein folding" he means in the predictive, screening sense; and not what would be extraordinary—patents on the discovery of how and why proteins fold the way they do (this isn’t really known yet, right?). Any guesses as to who he might have in mind?
Wilder
post script: I see my 'emphasis' did not arrive. How do you all italicize or highlight passages? |
