NANOSE & SNIFFPHONE, page-547

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]