Studies of granulosa cell maturation in dominant and subordinate bovine follicles : novel extracellular matrix focimatrix is co-ordinately regulated with cholesterol side-chain cleavage CYP11A1

During growth of antral ovarian follicles granulosa cells first become associated with a novel type of extracellular matrix, focimatrix, and at larger sizes follicles become either subordinate or dominant. To examine this, bovine subordinate (9.0±s.e.m. 0.4 mm; n=16), partially dominant (12.0±0.6 mm; n=18) and fully dominant (15.0±0.4 mm; n=14) follicles were examined by real time RT-PCR analyses of granulosa cells and by immunohistochemistry of focimatrix. Changes in the expression of FSH receptor, LH receptor, cholesterol side-chain cleavage (CYP11A1), 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase, aromatase (CYP19A1) and inhibin-α and β-B were observed as expected for follicle sizes examined. After adjusting for size differences, only CYP11A1 was significantly different between the groups, and elevated in dominant follicles. Also after adjusting for differences in size there were no significant differences in expression of focimatrix components collagen type IV α-1 (COL4A1), laminin β-2, nidogen 1 (NID1), and perlecan (HSPG2) or the volume density of NID1 and -2 and HSPG2. The volume density of focimatrix components in laminin 111 was significantly elevated in dominant follicles. Adjusting for analysis of more than one follicle per animal and for multiple correlations, CYP11A1 mRNA levels were highly correlated with the focimatrix genes COL4A1, NID1 and -2 and HSPG2. Thus, focimatrix may potentially regulate CYP11A1 expression, and the regulation of both could be important in follicular dominance.

Is there a physicality requirement at Common Law? : a survey of the Pre-NRDC cases discussing ‘Manufacture’

One of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today, both in Australia and in other jurisdictions, is whether an invention must produce a physical effect or cause a physical transformation of matter to be patentable, or whether it is sufficient that an invention involves a specific practical application of an idea or principle to achieve a useful result. In short, the question is whether Australian patent law contains a physicality requirement. Despite being recently considered by the Federal Court, this is arguably an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved in Australia. In its 2006 decision in Grant v Commissioner of Patents, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that the patentable subject matter standard is rooted in the physical, when it held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patent eligible. That decision, however, has been the subject of scrutiny in the academic literature. This article seeks to add to the existing literature written in response to the Grant decision by examining in detail the key common law cases decided prior to the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, which is the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regards to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This article, in conjunction with others written by the author, questions the Federal Court’s assertion in Grant that the physicality requirement it established is consistent with existing law.