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
-
T #medicine shared this topic on
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login