Judicial precedent

Notwithstanding speculation as to likely judicial interpretation in the event the issue is raised in an actual case, the PTO serves as the gatekeeper of patents, determining what innovations qualify under its understanding of the statute and judicial precedent. An understanding of PTO practice provides perhaps the best current instruction on the issue of genetic patenting. 

The PTO s statements with respect to patenting of whole genes are consistent with established judicial precedent. 

Common law originally referred to a system of law common across the whole country. However, its meaning has changed to encompass case law - the body of law based on judicial precedents, i.e. the decisions of judges in earlier cases are binding in similar later cases. It is not officially written but is recorded in Law Reports. 

Previous court decisions are looked to for guidance. English law has developed a strong doctrine of judicial precedent, so that some decisions must be followed in subsequent cases. Other precedents are persuasive. To operate this doctrine of judicial precedent it is necessary to know ... 

A fundamental principle that has been established by common law in the UK is that people have a duty of care towards others who may be affected by what they do. In the case of health and safety, this duty has been expanded by a judicial precedent to be a duty of reasonable care . When determining what is meant by reasonable care the courts will take into account the qualifications, experience, age, locality, intelligence, seniority and skills of the individuals concerned. 

When considering whether or not a duty of reasonable care was owed courts will always seek to identify an established relationship between the claimant and the duty holder. Relationships that have been established by judicial precedent include employer/employee, doctor/ patient and teacher/pupil. For claims relating to the duty of reasonable care the landmark case that established the neighbour principle was the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). 

Noncompete agreements must be signed as a condition of employment before someone joins your firm, because there is ample judicial precedent that renders such a provision unenforceable if it is imposed on current employees as a condition of keeping their jobs. Some states, such as California, only recognize the enforceability of noncompete agreements if they are an integral part of a business acquisition contract. 

---