Hi FF,
Without any research at all, Barry Marshall did not patent H. Pylori. He patented a method of treating tummy trouble by killing H. Pylori.
I think the use of the term "patented" in relation to biomarkers may not be correct.
In Darcy v Myriad, I think Gordon J was nearest the pin in finding that anything found in nature lacks the necessary novelty/inventiveness to qualify as an invention. The other judges seem to have been blinded by the science, not unlike when the HC had to deal with computer programs the first time (Autodesk v Dyason (1992)) (copyright).
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2015/HCA/35
That does not exclude methods of finding the natural product or methods of treating it from being patentable.
Also genetically engineered organisms can be patentable subject matter.
But why the Japanese had a downer on Mongolian gerbils I don't know. [https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/017983222/publication/WO9618291A1?q=WO9618291A1]
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- BRN
- NANOSE & SNIFFPHONE
NANOSE & SNIFFPHONE, page-547
-
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 948 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add BRN (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
|
|||||
Last
19.0¢ |
Change
-0.005(2.56%) |
Mkt cap ! $352.6M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
19.5¢ | 20.0¢ | 19.0¢ | $839.4K | 4.314M |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
73 | 2278913 | 19.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
19.5¢ | 321205 | 7 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
73 | 2278913 | 0.190 |
38 | 2299857 | 0.185 |
54 | 1757722 | 0.180 |
19 | 420004 | 0.175 |
28 | 862929 | 0.170 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
0.195 | 321205 | 7 |
0.200 | 703181 | 22 |
0.205 | 1151395 | 22 |
0.210 | 1464611 | 27 |
0.215 | 482615 | 20 |
Last trade - 16.10pm 16/07/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
BRN (ASX) Chart |