REFERENCES
- Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. 1:09-Cv-04515 (2009)
- Atomic Energy Act. 1954. Ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 943 (1954): codified as amended at 42 U.S.C § 2181 (1982) (In re Brueckner, 623 F.2d 184, 187 (C.C.P.A. 80) [applying this law very narrowly]
- Basl , J. 2010 . State neutrality and the ethics of human enhancement technologies . AJOB Neuroscience , 1 ( 2 ) : 41 – 48 .
- Burk , D. and Lemley , M. 2003 . Virginia Law Review , 89 : 1575
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) [quoting S. Rep. No. 82-1979 at 5 (52) and H.R. Rep. No. 82-23 at 6 (52)]
- Ex Parte Murphy, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 801 (Bd. App. 1977). [“We think this Office should not be the agency which seeks to enforce a standard of morality with respect to gambling, by refusing, on the ground of lack of patentable utility, to grant a patent.”]
- Gottschalk v. Benson 409 US 63 (1972) [“the basic tools of scientific and technological work”]
- In re Comiskey, 499 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
- Japanese Patent Law No. 121. 1959. Amended by Law No. 220 of 1999, art. 32
- Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999): 1366–1367
- Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006)
- Lowell v. Lewis,15 Cas 1018 (C.C. Mass 1817) [J. Story in nonbinding dictum states that “the law will not allow the plaintiff to recover, if the invention be of mischievous or injurious tendency”—e.g., patents to “poison people, or to promote debauchery, or to facilitate private assassination”]
- Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford. Co., 189 F 95 (SDNY 1911)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . 2009 . New interim patent subject matter eligibility examination instructions August 24