As the coronavirus outbreak continues to wreak havoc on markets and industries in the U.S. and around the world, businesses are now confronting significant and unique challenges. Successful navigation of these challenges...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (No. 15-1182), declining to review the Federal Circuit’s June 12, 2015, decision that certain methods of detecting paternally...more
On August 19th, the USPTO released a new set of proposed rules related to post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Among the many offered rules was the addition of a “Rule 11-type certification”...more
8/24/2015
/ Abuse of Process ,
America Invents Act ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hedge Funds ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion for Sanctions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Rule 11 ,
USPTO
On Friday, June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., affirming the district court's finding that Sequenom’s claims are invalid under 35 USC § 101. The court's...more
6/15/2015
/ Diagnostic Method ,
Inventions ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Myriad ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Personalized Medicine ,
Preemption ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Sequenom ,
Summary Judgment
The USPTO has issued new “Interim Guidance” for determining whether claims are eligible for patenting under 35 USC § 101. Although the new guidance technically applies to all technologies and all types of claims, Applicants...more
The USPTO has issued new “interim” guidance for determining whether claims are eligible for patenting under 35 USC 35 U.S.C. § 101. Assuming the guidance document is published in the December 16, 2014 Federal Register, it...more
The USPTO issued new guidelines for determining if claims are eligible for patenting in light of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013), and...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