• Professor Chris Buccafusco

    Lori B. Andrews

    Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology

    – Go to her faculty biography

    – Go to her publications:

       SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com
       Bepress: http://works.bepress.com/lori_andrews/


    Lori Andrews at i3

    by  • January 22, 2016 • Faculty Workshops/ Conferences • 0 Comments

    Lori Andrews and Hoda Kotb

    Lori Andrews (right) and Hoda Kotb

    Last week, Professor Lori Andrews spoke in New York City at “i3 – Insight, Innovation, Impact – A Summit for Women.” Sponsored by the UJA-Federation, the Summit brought together female thought leaders to share their stories of impact and change. In a five-hour program kicked off by Hoda Kotb of The Today Show, Professor Andrews shared the spotlight with women who had excelled in their fields—including women in law, science, journalism, innovation, and philanthropy. Andrews spoke on the issue of “Civil Liberties and National Security.” She fielded questions on whether the government should have a key to unlock all encryption on the web, how data aggregators collect personal information about people and what they do with it, how businesses might use facial recognition software, and the extent to which European laws can be applied against US-based social media companies.

    Read more about the conference here.

    Andrews — U.S. Supreme Court Liberates Breast Cancer Gene

    by  • June 14, 2013 • Faculty Commentary • 0 Comments

    On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. that human genes may not be patented. (Click here for an overview of the case at Oyez.) Professor Lori Andrews—who received grants from the federal Department of Energy Human Genome Project and from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to study the impact of gene patents on health care and medical research—played an integral part in shaping the Court’s decision. She filed amici curiae briefs on behalf of medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Society of Human Genetics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    arguing that genes are unpatentable products of nature.


    By Lori Andrews [via ISLAT blog]

    On Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court held in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., that human genes were not patentable since they are products of nature and not inventions. This decision is great news for patients, doctors, and scientific researchers. Some biotechnology companies might grumble about the decision, but the decision will actually stimulate innovation by pharmaceutical companies and the new generation of biotech companies.

    The case involved Myriad’s patents on the human breast cancer genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. Those patents made your genes Myriad’s property once they were removed from your body. Consequently, the company could control all uses of the genes, including any diagnostic testing or research. The U.S. Supreme Court saw the absurdity of letting a company own your breast cancer genes.

    The decision is well-founded in law. For the past 150 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that one cannot patent products of nature, or materials isolated from products of nature. In a 1980 biotech case, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court said,

    The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are “manifestations of . . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.”

    The Supreme Court today said, “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” This decision is a good one across the board. (more…)

    SCIPR Highlights, Part 1

    by  • September 25, 2012 • Faculty Workshops/ Conferences, Scholarship • 0 Comments

    On Thursday, September 13, Chicago-Kent hosted the 2012 Supreme Court Intellectual Property Review (SCIPR), a conference highlighting intellectual property cases from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 Term and previewing significant IP cases in the upcoming 2012 Term. Two Chicago-Kent faculty members, Lori Andrews and Carolyn Shapiro, participated in panels at the conference. Visit the conference’s home page for the conference schedule, panelist biographies, and audio transcripts of the featured Supreme Court cases. See the posts “SCIPR Highlights, Part 2” and “SCIPR Highlights, Part 3” for more on the conference.

    The following summary, prepared with the assistance of Lori Andrews, outlines the panel on Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboraties, Inc.

    Lori Andrews joined panelists Arti Rai, the Honorable Paul S. Grewal, Jon Singer, and moderator Nabeela Rasheed in a panel analyzing the implications of the Sumpreme Court’s decision in Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories.

    The Court held that claims in two of Prometheus Laboratories’ patents, which covered a way of determining the optimal dosage for a certain drug, were invalid because they claimed a law of nature, rather than an invention. Prometheus’ patented approach consisted of instructing physicians to administer the drug to a patient, determine the patient’s bodily response to the drug (the resulting metabolite level), and recognize that a metabolite level outside a given range would be ineffective in treatment. The Court found that Prometheus’ patent claims were actually claims on a “law of nature”—the relationship between the concentration of metabolites in a patient’s blood and the drug’s effectiveness. In support of its holding, the Court cited over 150 years of Supreme Court precedent that stated “laws of nature” cannot be the subject of a patent.

    The panel discussed the many questions raised by the case, including its most pressing: what constitutes a “law of nature,” and how are we equipped to judge one as such? Professor Lori Andrews offered clarification on this abstract point, differentiating between the legitimate patent of a drug—a synthetic human invention—and the illegitimate patent of a reaction to the drug—a law of nature. Andrews explained that merely discovering nature’s handiwork is not sufficient for a patent. Even though the U.S. Constitution protects “discoveries” in the patent clause, that term was used at the time to mean what we consider “inventions” today—something made by man.

    Andrews and others also critiqued the actions of the Patent Office, calling to attention its poor job of applying the traditional standards of patentability to patents like Prometheus’ claimed methods. The panel also noted the lack of “safety valves” in the patent system—unlike in the copyright system—and suggested ideas that could possibly prevent this type of issue from reoccurring in patent law.

    Professor Andrews has written and presented extensively on the subject of intellectual property and technology, especially health technology. She directs the Institute for Science, Law & Technology at Chicago-Kent. Read more of her work on SSRNBepress, and her website, the Social Network Constitution.

    For more background on the Mayo v. Prometheus case, see Lyle Dennison’s opinion recap on SCOTUSblog.

    U.S. v. Jones: Protecting Privacy in the Digital Age

    by  • February 25, 2012 • Faculty Commentary • 0 Comments

    By Lori Andrews [via Social Network Constitution Blog]

    As technology makes surveillance easier and cheaper, courts are grappling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment in the digital age.  Prior to beepers, GPS, people checking in on Foursquare, and social networks, law enforcement monitoring of suspected offenders was limited by the constraints of manpower, budget and the risk that the officers following suspects might themselves be seen.

    But now an increasing amount of information about people’s whereabouts, activities, purchases and intentions can be gleaned digitally, without an officer ever leaving the station.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this month in United States v. Jones provides little guidance about which activities might be considered searches, which require warrants, and which voluntary disclosures to third parties might waive Fourth Amendment rights.

    The case involved a GPS tracking device installed on a car owned by his wife and driven by Antoine Jones, a D.C. nightclub owner.  Jones was the target of a narcotics investigation by police and the FBI, who obtained a search warrant to place a GPS device on the car in D.C.  within 10 days.  The device was planted on the car on the 11th day in Maryland.

    At his trial for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, Jones moved to exclude the information collected through GPS monitoring, but the district court suppressed only the data obtained while the vehicle was parked in Jones’s own garage.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed his conviction on the grounds that the 28-day warrantless use of the GPS violated the Fourth Amendment. (more…)