On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the patentability of isolated human DNA.  The Court ruled that isolated human DNA is not patentable (no matter how isolated) because it is a “product of nature.” The unanimous Court also held that synthetically created complementary DNA (cDNA) is “patent eligible.”  The case has generated significant interest since 2009, when a group of researchers, doctors, and breast cancer patients, supported by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation sued Myriad Genetics in New York federal trial court.  The Court's finding that cDNA (formed by reverse transcription of mRNA) is patent eligible under the patent statute remains to be applied by the lower courts.  In particular, the Court signaled that it may be possible to obtain a patent when a synthetic form of genes is created.  According to the Court, these do not exist in nature, and are therefore patent-eligible.

Perhaps most interesting was Justice Scalia's concurrence where he stated: "I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief."  If the Court cannot--or will not--make these decisions, who will?

On May 16, 2013, the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet (part of the Judiciary Committee) held a hearing on beginning the process of revising the Copyright Act.  Last revised in 1976 before the Internet or desktop computers were a part of our everyday lives, the Copyright Act has been revised in a piecemeal fashion since then.   The hearing discussed the recommendations of the 2010 Copyright Principles Project (“CPP”), which included a group of academic and private sector copyright practitioners.

The CPP made two overall recommendations that would alter the way copyright law is practiced.  First, the CPP recommended that the registration process be modified to encourage more registration so that the public will have better information on the ownership of copyrighted works.  Today, the vast majority of copyrights are not registered.  Second, the CPP recommended that the Copyright Office certify other private and public entities as copyright registrars.  This would further encourage copyright registration.

Given the stakes involved, the road to copyright reform will be long and hard-fought.

For many years, the European Union consolidated some (but not all) of the patent operations for its member-states.  Patent applicants may apply for a patent in a central EU office that would also provide an initial examination.  But to obtain the actual patent, applicants must then apply for the patent in that country and pay all associated fees.  This expensive and cumbersome process will undergo significant reform beginning in 2014 when the unitary EU patent process begins operations.  Trademark operations have been consolidated in the EU for many years.

Patent litigation in the EU is also conducted on a country-by-country basis and similar efforts are underway to consolidate this process in a single forum.  On Feb 19, 2013, ministers from 23 EU states signed the new agreement establishing a Unified Patent Court for the EU.  Full implementation will take a number of years but when established, a centralized patent litigation system will apply to the entire EU.