The question has arisen over the past year, since the Federal
Circuit's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Eli
Lilly, of what, and how much, the inventor of an isolated and
sequenced cDNA "is in possession of." The exact definition and
contours of the word "possession" remain to be determined.
I'm curious: would those of you skilled in molecular biology say,
based on a general understanding of the concept of "possession," that
someone who has isolated and sequenced a cDNA is more likely than not
"in possession of" not only the intact clone but also fragments of
that cDNA?
daniel_becker at yahoo.com
