In Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., (August 13, 2015 Fed. Cir.) an en banc Federal Circuit unanimously held that direct infringement under Section 271(a) can occur...more
8/25/2015
/ Akamai Technologies ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Diagnostic Tests ,
Direct Infringement ,
En Banc Review ,
Induced Infringement ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Myriad ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Personalized Medicine ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
Just last week, the USPTO released its revised subject matter eligibility guidance (2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility “Interim Guidance” reviewed in my prior post of December 16th, 2014). The Interim...more
On Monday October 6th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will entertain oral argument in another case involving Myriad’s BRCA1/BRCA2 diagnostic tests. In re BRCA1- and BRCA2- Based Hereditary Cancer Test...more
Periodically, the USPTO holds open meetings with the public to discuss its thinking on current topics relating to the patent procurement process. Late last week, the Biotechnology, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Customer...more
Recently in Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, No. 2013-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) dismissed Appellant Consumer Watchdog’s appeal on the...more
6/16/2014
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Consumer Watchdog ,
DNA ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Myriad ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Stem cells ,
USPTO ,
WARF
In March, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented new procedures to address whether inventions that relate in whole or in part to laws of nature and naturally occurring products are patent-eligibility in...more
On March 4th, 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued “2014 Procedures For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or...more
Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Guidance, advising examiners and the public of the factors for determining whether an invention satisfies the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of 35...more
In a July 12, 2013 letter to Dr. Francis S. Collins of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), Senator Patrick J. Leahy urged the NIH to exercise its march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act to directly license the genetic...more
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that isolated, naturally-occurring genes are not patent-eligible (see, Ass’n. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. __ (2013))(“Myriad”), Consumer Watchdog...more
On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., __ U.S. __ (2013), held that genes and DNA fragments merely isolated from nature without alteration are not patent-eligible....more
On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patenting case (formally, Association For Molecular Pathology. et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., Supreme Court No....more
In a companion case to the “gene patenting” dispute presently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Myriad Genetics, Inc. successfully defended the patent-eligibility of “gene patents” in Australia. In Cancer Voices et al. v. Myriad...more
As reported in my November 30th, 2012 post, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the issue “are human genes patentable?”...more
On November 30th, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court will conference and consider whether to review the patent-eligibility of isolated DNA sequences. Our prior post of September 25, 2012 addressed Petitioners’ brief and request for...more
On October 31, 2012, Myriad Genetics, Inc. et al. (“Respondent” or “Myriad”) filed its brief in opposition to Petitioners’ (The Association for Molecular Pathology et al., represented by the American Civil Liberties Union or...more
Patents protect proprietary information but are of limited duration. After expiration, the patented technology becomes part of the public domain. Trade secrets, in contrast, never expire and therefore are not accessible to...more