Readers of this and other blogs will have been aware of comments of mine in relation to the USPTO natural product eligibility guidance.

Available here is the final version of the post-forum comments that I submitted  to USPTO on 15 June.

On substantive law, the comments take the position that the ruling in Myriad is concerned with reasons rather than structural differences and that the qualification for eligibility should continue to be a difference plus new utility.

A number of suggested replacement or additional examples have been included. Where appropriate, these have been created using real world examples such as cephalosporin plasmids and rapamycin based on real expired patents rather than notional examples such as Amazonic acid. It is believed that real world examples are more fairly representative of past and current research.

The end of the term for comments at the end of June is rapidly approaching. Those wish to summit comments on the guidance should do so using the myriad-mayo comment address  myriad-mayo_2014@uspto.gov .

Paul Cole, from Lucas & Co., U.K. authored this article.