Reader TTS

In the face of the Supreme Court’s double-novelty requirement and the negative impact that requirement has had on biotechnology, the time has come for a new paradigm of law. Access through

your institution Buy or subscribe This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature

Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription $29.99 / 30 days cancel any time Learn more Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year only $17.42 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are

calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support REFERENCES * 35 USC §101. * _In re

Nuijten_, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007). * _Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc_., 566 US 66 (2012). * _Diamond v. Diehr_, 450 US 175 (1981). * _Diamond v. Chakrabarty_,

447 US 303 (1980). * _Gottschalk v. Benson_, 409 US 63 (1972). * _Le Roy v. Tatham_, 55 US 156 (1852). * _Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l_, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). * 35 USC §102(a). *

Thomas, J. R. _Patentable Subject Matter Reform_ (Congressional Research Service, 2017). * _Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc_., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). * Tran, J. L. _J.

Pat. Trademark Off. Soc._ 98, 354–373 (2016). Google Scholar  * Ohlhausen, M. K. _Harv. J. Law Technol_ 30, 103–127 (2016). Google Scholar  * Nard, C. A., Madison, M. J. & McKenna, M. P.

_The Law of Intellectual Property_ 3rd edn (Wolters Kluwer, 2011). * Hemel, D. J. & Ouellette, L. L. _Tex. Law Rev._ 92, 303–320 (2013). Google Scholar  * Lefstin, J. A. et al. Final

report of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Section 101 Workshop: addressing patent eligibility challenges. _Berkeley Tech. Law Rev._ 33, 551 (2018). Google Scholar  * Madigan, K.

& Mossoff, A. Turning gold to lead: how patent eligibility doctrine is undermining U.S. leadership in innovation. _George Mason Univ. Law Rev._ 24, 939 (2017). Google Scholar  *

International Monetary Fund. World Economic and Financial Surveys, World Economic Outlook Database. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx (2017). *

Sahachartsiri, B. _AIPLA Q. J._ 45, 165–171 (2017). Google Scholar  Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation, SMU Dedman

School of Law, Dallas, TX, USA David O. Taylor Authors * David O. Taylor View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Correspondence to David O. Taylor. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Taylor, D.O. The Supreme Court’s revolution in patent eligibility law:

alternative protections for biotechnology. _Nat Biotechnol_ 37, 227–230 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0039-9 Download citation * Published: 04 March 2019 * Issue Date: March

2019 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0039-9 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable

link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative