 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
I have removed the orphan status because I just linked the article from some related pages. Let me know of anything else that needs to be done to fix up this page even more.DaltonCastle (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there are some issues with the factual correctness of this article, or at least with the way the information is presented. The specific case deals with specific crystal forms of a chemical substance and there appears to be some sort of claim along the line of "crystal form X obtained by crystalizing compound Y under conditions Z". The explicit mention of the method in the claim seems to be an important part of what this case is about.
I am not a legal expert, but I am a chemist, and there are literally thousands of chemical substances out there that are protected by patents on the chemical structure itself. If the text of this article were literally true, there would be no effective patent protection for any drug or other chemical substance available in the U.S., as there are always an infinite number of ways to make a specific compound. I think the ramifications of this ruling are much narrower than what is described in the article.
Notably, the case here is about crystal forms. Historically, crystal form patents almost never hold up in court. Patents covering chemical structure are quite a different ball of wax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.21.76 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)