English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

If you walked into the woods and discovered a new type of mineral, picked it up, and brought it back to society, would you be entitled to a patent for that mineral? What if that mineral weighed two tons or was buried deep underground, and it required substantial financial resources and hard work to retrieve it? The answer to both of these questions is unequivocally no. Now what if you went out into the woods, discovered a new type of bacterium in the soil, retrieved it from the soil, and brought it back to society, would you be entitled to a patent then? The answer is, surprisingly, yes. What characteristic does an isolated naturally occurring organism have that a naturally occurring mineral lacks that makes the isolated organism eligible for a patent? This Comment will argue there is no distinction between these two discoveries: neither should merit a patent. Rather, due to the conflation of two distinct patent law requirements, patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), the

You Didn't Build That: The Case Against Patentability of Isolated Organisms