China v US: what can be patented in the life sciences field?
Regarding patentable subject matter, the TRIPS Agreement specifies in a rticle 27.1 that patents shall be available “for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all technical fields”. In the US, the Supreme Court established the principle in the decision of Diamond v Chakrabarty in 1981 that “patentable subject matter should include anything under the sun that is made by man”.
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk
26 February 2026 As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the Hikma and Amarin dispute, the case has drawn a broad coalition of industry support—including the US government and a co-author of the Hatch-Waxman Act itself.
26 February 2026 In a decision with implications for biotechnology licensing and pharmaceutical manufacturing, the Ninth Circuit has rejected a ‘sweeping’ royalty trigger from a lower court.
25 February 2026 The Danish company is contending with fierce competition, a clinical trial setback and a UK boost to its main rival, while making new moves to enforce its weight-loss-drug IP.