ShultR, FasseJP, The United States Patent & Trademark Office's current view on patent eligibility. Ind Biotechnol, 2014; 10(3):156–158.
2.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
3.
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc., dba Farm Advantage, Inc., et al. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001).
4.
Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. __ (2013).
5.
Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2012).
6.
In re Arzberger, 112 F.2d 834 (1940).
7.
Id. at 837.
8.
Id. at 838.
9.
United States Patent and Trademark Office. Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 USC 101: March2014 Update, March19, 2014 presentation.
10.
United States Department of Agriculture. Plant Variety Protection Act and Regulations and Rules of Practice. February2006.
11.
Id. at 10–11.
12.
Id. at 9.
13.
Imazio Nursery v. Dania Greenhouses, 69 F.3d 1560 (1995).
14.
Id. at 1570.
15.
Plant Variety Protection Act, at 19.
16.
Id. at 8.
17.
Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179 (1994).
18.
Id. at 18.
19.
Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1761 (2013).
20.
Id. at 1769.
21.
United States Patent and Trademark Office. Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products, at 3. 2014. Available at www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_guidance.pdf (Last accessed August2014).
