In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (“Alice”) held that technologies that merely implemented an abstract idea with a generic computer were not eligible for patent...more
In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., Slip Op. 14-1538 (Feb. 22, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to...more
3/9/2017
/ Appeals ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Cross-Border Transactions ,
Exports ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
IP License ,
Life Technologies Corp v Promega Corp ,
Manufacturer Liability ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS
In Genetic Techs Ltd v Merial LLC (Fed. Cir., April 8, 2016), the Federal Circuit invalidated yet another diagnostic patent for failing to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the ground that the claims recite nothing more than a law...more
Personalized medicine can be described as the science of targeted therapies. Advances in diagnostic and molecular medicine have made it possible to more precisely identify alternative treatment options for patients based on...more
11/4/2015
/ AMP v Myriad ,
Biotechnology ,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ,
Clinical Laboratories ,
Complete Genomics ,
Diagnostic Method ,
Diagnostic Tests ,
FDA Approval ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Genetic Testing ,
Health Insurance ,
Healthcare ,
Healthcare Costs ,
Healthcare Reform ,
Innovation ,
Insurance Industry ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Life Sciences ,
Medicaid ,
Medicare ,
Personalized Medicine ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Reimbursements ,
Research and Development ,
SCOTUS
Personalized medicine relies on diagnostic technologies to accurately evaluate a patient’s clinical or genetic signature to guide treatment decisions. Protecting innovation by patenting the diagnostic methods and tools that...more
9/21/2015
/ Algorithms ,
AMP v Myriad ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Diagnostic Method ,
Innovation Patent ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Personalized Medicine ,
SCOTUS ,
Software ,
USPTO
Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) lost a ruling that competitor NOVA Chemical Corporation and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (collectively “NOVA”) infringed claims of two Dow patents when the Federal Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more
9/1/2015
/ Best Practices ,
Definiteness ,
Dow Chemical ,
Indefiniteness ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
SCOTUS ,
Stare Decisis ,
Teva v Sandoz
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
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
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
Did the Federal Circuit incorrectly interpret and apply the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding patent-eligibility of medical methods as set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,...more
Patenting diagnostic methods is more challenging in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Courts Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2012) (Prometheus) and the USPTO’s application of the...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