Editor, iBlawg

English

Duke Law Scholarship Repository

Duke Law and Technology Review - iBlawg » Blog Archive » Call for Submissions: Crichton v. Federal Circuithttp://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20070607181924/http://www2.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/iblawg/?p=34[9/27/2016 11:49:37 AM]iBlawg Presented by: Duke Law and TechnologyReviewHome About Contact F.A.Q. StaffNext Article »« Previous ArticleCall for Submissions: Crichton v.Federal Circuitby iBlawgWith two key cases before the United States Supreme Court, the blogosphereabuzz with discussion, and popular media eagerly reporting, patent law is allthe rage. One of the more recent signs that patent issues have struck a cordwith mainstream America came in the form of a New York Times Op/Ed essayby author Michael Crichton. Crichton’s piece "This Essay Breaks the Law"(also available here.) strongly criticized the direction in which our patentsystem is headed, echoing criticism of the Federal Circuit’s patent lawjurisprudence.This whirlwind of criticism has come about in light of Lab. Corp. v. MetaboliteLabs., Inc., a case recently argued in front of the Supreme Court. At firstglance, the controversy seems to stem from a harmless looking patent on avitamin deficiency test. Claim 13 of the patent covers a method for detectingvitamin deficiency comprising the steps of (1) assaying for an elevated level oftotal homocysteine and (2) correlating an elevated level of total homocysteinewith a vitamin deficiency. U.S. Patent No. 4,940,658 (filed Nov. 20, 1986).Metabolite licensed this patent to LabCorp. Under the license, LabCorp.performed assays testing homocysteine levels—the first step of claim 13 of the‘658 patent. But LabCorp. subsequently ended its deal with Metabolite.Metabolite sued for infringement when it found out that LabCorp. switched to atest from another company. Although LabCorp. only performed claim 13’s firststep, Metabolite claimed that LabCorp. actively induced doctors to perform thesecond step—correlating the test results—and thereby infringe the patent.LabCorp. assisted infringement, according to Metabolite, by publishingContinuing Medical Education articles that explained how to correlate the testresults to determine the existence of a vitamin deficiency. Because of these CategorieseCommerceCyberCrimeInternationalMedia & CommunicationsPatents & TechnologyHealth & BiotechnologyCopyrights & TrademarksRecent PostsThe Federal Circuit andAdministrative LawPrinciplesBlocking Former SexOffenders from OnlineSocial Networks: Is thisa Due Process Violation?Viacom v. Google: WhoseTube Is It Anyway?Blocking Former SexOffenders from OnlineSocial Networks: Is thisa Violation of FreeSpeech?Upcoming Events at DukeLawSubscribeRSS 2.0 BlogrollSlashdotPhositaLibrary of Congress Web Archives CollectionThis is an archived Web site from the Library of Congresshttp://www2.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/iblawg/?p=34Archived: 06/07/2007 at 22:19:24Note: External links, streamingaudio/video, forms and searchboxes may not function withinthis web site archive First (06/07/2007)     Previous  #1 of 9  Next     Last (11/01/2007) Ask a Librarian« Back to previous pageDuke Law and Technology Review - iBlawg » Blog Archive » Call for Submissions: Crichton v. Federal Circuithttp://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20070607181924/http://www2.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/iblawg/?p=34[9/27/2016 11:49:37 AM]publications, the Federal Circuit held that LabCorp. had actively inducedinfringement.But the Federal Circuit’s opinion ignored whether this patent effectively claimsa "law of nature," which cannot be patented under long-standing doctrine. TheSupreme Court granted review and asked parties to brief the Court on thisissue exclusively.While this case and the Federal Circuit’s patent law jurisprudence have beenthe source of many animated debates among inventors and lawyers, MichaelCrichton’s Op/Ed essay has brought the issue to the attention of the generalpublic, and we are undeniably in an era in which questions of patent lawshould be publicly scrutinized. The progress of science (or rather the "usefularts" for the sake historical accuracy) has a profound effect on our daily lives,and it would behoove all of us to consider these matters seriously. In light ofthis, the iBlawg seeks your thoughts on this issue or on Crichton’s piece. Weinvite any and all interested in submitting a post to contact us atiBlawg@law.duke.edu.Jim Sherwood, Editor-in-ChiefRyan McLeod, Chief Executive EditorPosted in Patents & Technology :: 3/30/06 ::One Response to “Call for Submissions: Crichton v. Federal Circuit”You can follow the responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0  feed. You can leave aresponse, or trackback from your own site.Duke Law and Technology Review - iBlawg » Blog Archive » A WriterSpeaks Truth :: 4/09/06 at 7:17 pm[…] Staff « Previous Article […]Add a Comment Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) WebsiteXHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b><blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>Patently OTech DirtBerkman Center forInternet and SocietyBlogBerkeley IntellectualProperty WeblogStanford Center forInternet and SocietyBlogsThe Trademark BlogNetlawblogEric Goldman's Technology& Law BlogWilson Sonsini's SiliconMedia Law BlogPatry Copyright BlogLawrence Lessig's BlogTTA BlogIP News BlogTech Law AdvisorPromote the Progress

Call for Submissions: Crichton v. Federal Circuit

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&amp;context=iblawgs

Call for Submissions: Crichton v. Federal Circuit

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Duke Law Scholarship Repository

bepress Legal Repository