Bilski brief of the University of South Florida

The amicus brief of the University of South Florida (USF) in Bilski begins:

The University of South Florida (hereinafter,
“USF”) is the nation’s ninth largest public university
and a leading research institution.

[See also
Three Florida universities in "top 10" in nation for enrollment

The USF amicus brief spends time discussing
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 304
F.App’x 866 (Fed. Cir. 2008) [ “Dr. Classen’s claims are neither ‘tied to a
particular machine or apparatus’ nor do they ‘transform[ ] a
particular article into a different state or thing.’ Therefore we
affirm.”] and is directed to the interest of USF in medical methods:

USF medical researchers strive to expand the
frontiers of medicine, searching for improved
methods of diagnosing, prognosing, and treating
diseases such as cancer, HIV, diabetes, and
neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and
Parkinson’s diseases.

See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2004/12/saneron-gets-sbir-award-in-cord-blood.html
[patent on a method of transplanting cells using a Sertoli cell biochamber. ]

On Classen


Classen Immunotherapies smoked via Bilski


Merck v. Integra and patents on research tools -->

In Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, decided just a month after Merck in the
District of Maryland, the district court interpreted Merck's holding in the
broadest possible manner, dismissing Classen's claims against Biogen IDEC
("Biogen") and GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") when the defendants successfully argued that
their allegedly infringing acts of research tool use fell within the safe
harbor provision of 271(e)(1) as construed in Lilly and Merck.

(...)
LBE had discussed Classen v. Biogen in Intellectual Property Today in 2005 (You Only Look Twice, IPT, p. 18 (Nov. 2005))