[Footnotes]

[Footnotes]
1
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 100 S.Ct. (1980), 2207
Historical statistics of the United States, Colonial times to 1970 (2 vols., Washington, D.C., 1975), 2, 957–59
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Brief for the respondent [Jan 1980], 18–19, 50–51
Brief for the petitioner [Jan 1980], 2–3
Frank P. Darr, "Expanding patent coverage: Policy implications of Diamond v. Chakrabarty," Ohio State law journal, 42 (1981), 1071.
2
Ex Parte Latimer, 12 Mar 1889, CD., 46 O.G. 1638, U.S. Patent Office, Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and of the United States Courts in Patent Cases.. .1889 (Washington, D.C., 1890), 123–27.
H. Thorne, "Relation of patent law to natural products," Patent Office Society, Journal, 6 (1923), 23–28.
3
Stephen A. Bent et al., Intellectual property rights in biotechnology worldwide (New York, 1987).
F.K. Beier, R.S. Crespi, and J. Straus, Biotechnology and patent protection: An international review (Paris, 1985).
4
Glenn Bugos and Daniel J. Kevles, "Plants as intellectual property: American law, poli- cy, and practice in world context," Osiris, 7 (1992), 119–48.
5
Jack R. Kloppenburg, Jr., First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492–2000 (New York, 1988)
Calestous Juma, The gene hunters: Biotechnology and the scramble for seeds (Princeton, 1989).
Charles Weiner, "Professors and patents: A continuing controversy," Technology review, 89 (Feb/Mar 1986), 33–43
"Patenting and academic research: Historical case studies," Science, technology, and human values, 12 (1987), 50–56
William H. Lesser, ed., Animal patents: The legal, economic, and social issues (New York, 1989)
Sheldon Krimsky, Biotechnics and society: The rise of industrial genetics (New York, 1991).
6
People, 14 (14 Jul 1980), 38
Graham S. Wilson and A. Ashley Miles, Topley and Wilson's principles of bacteriology and immunity (5th ed., 2 vols., London, 1964), 1, 636–38
7
"Declaration of Chakrabarty," in U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Transcript of record, Patent Appeal Docket No. 77–535.
In the matter of the application of Ananda M. Chakrabarty, applicant (Hereafter, Transcript of record.. .Chakrabarty), 75–76
"Interview" (ref. 6).
8
"Declaration" (ref. 7) 6–7, 75–76
Daniel I.C. Wang, "Proteins from petroleum," Chemical engineering, 75 (26 Aug 1968), 99–108.
9
Business week (8 Feb 1969), 60
Time (7 Apr 1967), 28
Science news, 95 (22 Feb 1969), 183–184.
10
"Interview" (ref. 6).
11
Ibid.
12
People (ref. 6), 38.
13
"Declaration" (ref. 7)
"Application" (ref. 8), 13–15, 38, 41–42, 47–52, 75–76
"In- terview" (ref. 6).
14
"Interview" (ref. 6).
15
Ibid.
16
"Interview" (ref. 6)
"Interview" (ref. 15).
18
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (ref. 1).
19
"Application" (ref. 7), 6–7.
21
"Letter of examiner," 19 Sep 1973
Chakrabarty,"Amendment," 6 Dec 1973
"Letter of examiner," 11 Jan 1974
Chakrabarty, "Amendment," 5 Apr 1974
Malossi, "Brief," 24 June 1974
"Examiner's answer," 23 Sep 1974
Malossi, "Reply brief," 10 Oct 1974
"Opin- ion and decision of Board of Appeals," 20 May 1976
Transcript of record.. .Chakrabarty (ref. 7), 59–61, 65–66, 68–73, 78–80, 82–84, 86–97.
22
"Examiner's answer," 23 Sep 1974
"Opinion and decision of Board of Appeals," 20 May 1976, in ibid., 86–89, 92–97.
23
"Interview" (ref. 17)
24
"Application of Malcolm E. Bergy," 10 June 1974
Transcript of record, patent appeal docket No. 76–712, In re application of Malcolm E. Bergy, et al., filed 16 Aug 1976, 6
Roman Saliwanchik, 14 Oct 1988.
25
"Letter of examiner, 6 Feb 1975
" Saliwanchik, "Brief," 18 Mar 1975
"Opinion and decision of Board of Appeals, June 22, 1976," in Transcript of record.. .Bergy (ref. 24), 34, 54, 62–63
In the matter of the application of Malcolm E. Bergy et al., patent appeal no. 76– 712, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 563 F. 2d, 1032-1035 (1977)
Application of Ananda M. Chakrabarty, Patent Appeal No. 77–535, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Ap- peals, 571 F. 2d, 42 (1978).
26
Application of Malcolm E. Bergy (ref. 25), 1034–1035.
27
Ibid., 1037–1038.
28
Application of Ananda M. Chakrabarty (ref. 25), 43–44.
29
Steven S. Hall, Invisible frontiers: The race to synthesize a human gene (New York, 1987), 87–88, 199–203, 213–22, 231–35, 241–48, 266, 269–83
Matt Clark with Joseph Con- treras, "Making insulin," Newsweek, 92 (18 Sep 1978), 93.
30
Martin Kenney, Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex (New Haven, 1986), 44–45, 56, 61–67, 73, 78–80, 140, 191
Nicholas Wade, "Recombinant DNA: Warming up for the big payoff," Science, 206 (9 Nov 1979), 663, 665
The Wall Street Journal, 10 May 1979.
31
Susan Wright, "Recombinant DNA technology and its social transformation, 1972– 1982," Osiris, 2 (1986), 303–60.
33
Solicitor General, Petition for a writ of certiorari....In the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term 1977, Lutrelle F. Parker v. Malcolm E. Bergy et al., docket no. 77–1503, filed 20 Apr 1978, 6–7.
34
Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 Ct. 2522, at 2528
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 29 Mar 1979, 596 Federal Reporter, 952, at 957.
35
"In re application of Ananda M. Chakrabarty, appellant" [filed fall 1978], 4.
36
Parker v. Flook (ref. 34)
"In the matter of the application of Ananda M. Chakrabarty," 4.
37
"Supplemental brief for appellant" (ref. 35), 4, 6–8, 15, 22
Saliwanchik, "Brief in op- position to petition for writ of certiorari...," In the Supreme Court of the United States, Oc- tober Term 1977, No. 77–1503, Lutrelle F. Parker v. Malcolm E. Bergy, filed 11 May 1978, 5
"In re application of Malcolm E. Bergy, et al.," appellants, 2–4
38
Kenney, Biotechnology, 94–96
The Wall Street Journal (7 Sep 1978), 17
Saliwanchik (ref. 25)
Lutrelle F. Parker v. Malcolm E. Bergy (ref. 33)
In the matter of.. .Bergy and In the matter of.. .Chakrabarty, 1, 2, 14–20
ibid.,
39
"University of California" (ref. 38)
"Genentech" (ref. 38).
40
"Application of Malcolm E. Bergy.. .Application of Ananda M. Chakrabarty" (ref. 34), on 952–53, 955, 967, 973–75, 984–5, 986, 999.
42
Motion to discuss and vacate as to respondents Malcolm E. Bergy, et ai, 20 Dec 1979, pp. la–2a
The Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan 1980, 4
"Supreme Court hears argument on patenting life forms," Science, 208 (4 Apr 1980), 31.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, docket no. 79–136, 447 U.S., 303.
43
Parker v. Bergy et al., and Parker v. Chakrabarty, Brief on behalf of the People s Business Commission, amicus cu- riae, Dec 1979, 17–18
Diamond v. Bergy et al. and Diamond v. Chakrabarty (ref. 1), 10, 20– 21.
44
People s Business Commission (ref. 43), 5–9
National Research Council, Committee on Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops, Genetic vulnerability of major crops (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1972), 1.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Plant Genetics Resources Board, Plant genetic resources: Conservation and use (Washington, D.C., 1979).
45
People s Business Commission (ref. 43), 7–9, 12–13.
46
People's Business Commission (ref. 43), 11–12, 21–22, 27, 29–30.
47
Brief for the petitioner (ref. 43), 9–10, 17–21
Parker v. Bergy et al. and Parker v. Chakrabarty, Chakrabarty's brief in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Sep 1979, 6, n. 3
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Brief for the respondent (ref. 43), 27–28.
48
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Brief on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associa- tion, amicus curiae, Jan 1980, 13, 26–28, 48
Brief on behalf of Genentech, Inc., amicus cu- riae, Jan 1980, 13, 17–18.
49
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (ibid.), 28–29
Genentech (ibid.), 3.
50
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Brief on behalf of the American Patent Law Association, Inc., amicus curiae, Jan 1980, 22
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (ref. 48), 20, 22–23
Genentech (ref. 48), 12.
51
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (ref. 48), 15–16
Genentech (ref. 48), 4–12.
52
Patents," The United States law week, 48 (25 Mar 1980), 3609–3610
53
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980) at 2206–2212.
54
Ibid.
Lewis F. Powell to Mr. Justice Brennan, 29 May 1980, William J. Brennan MSS, Library of Congress, Container 535.
55
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (ref. 53), 2211–12.
56
The New York Times, 18 June 1980, A30
"Patenting life: Split perspectives," Science news, 118 (2 Aug 1980), 71.
57
"Test-Tube life," Time, 115 (30 June 1980), 52–53
Peter Gwynne, "Court decision spurs genetic research," Industrial research and development, 22 (Aug 1980), 46
"The right to patent life," Newsweek, 95 (30 June 1980), 74
Los Angeles Times (17 June 1980), 11
C. Larry O'Rourke, "The Chakrabarty decision," Environment, 22 (Jul/Aug 1980), 5.
58
Ex Parte Hibberd, et al. (1985) 227 United States patent quarterly, 443
Ex Parte Allen, United States patent quarterly (1987), 1425.
59
Herblock cartoon, Washington Post, 18 Jun 1980, A22
"Letter from three general secretaries," 20 Jun 1980
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Prob- lems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Splicing life: A report on the so- cial and ethical issues in genetic engineering with human beings (Washington, D.C., 1982), Appendix B.
This content is only available via PDF.

Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview