Having to see an eye doctor reminds me of the landmark medical patent litigation over cataract surgery in Pallin v Singer 36 USPQ 2d 1050 (1995) - which resulted in US Congress drafting a medical treatment defence in the Clinton era.

Having to see an eye doctor reminds me of the landmark medical patent litigation over cataract surgery in Pallin v Singer 36 USPQ 2d 1050 (1995) - which resulted in US Congress drafting a medical treatment defence in the Clinton era.

Katherine J. Strandburg has written a great case study of the Pallin v Singer patent litigation - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2538557 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/intellectual-property-at-the-edge/legal-but-unacceptablepallin-v-singerand-physician-patenting-norms/7216CE72632BC232FF89472FD8937CAE

The Australian Law Reform Commission considered a medical treatment defence in an inquiry - but the Australian Government has not taken any action in this field.

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/genes-and-ingenuity-gene-patenting-and-human-health-alrc-report-99/21-medical-treatment-defences/a-medical-treatment-defence/ #patent #medicine #uslaw #auslaw