The Federal Circuit's Ariosa v. Sequenom decision handed down earlier this summer marked the apex (or nadir, according to your prejudices) of the current trend to limit the scope of patent eligible subject matter.  On August 27, 2015, twelve amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of Sequenom's petition to the full court for rehearing en banc.  We will post on the substance of these briefs in later posts; for now the posts can be accessed here:

• Twenty-three Law Professors, Kevin E. Noonan Counsel for Amicus Curiae -- brief

• Novartis AG, Corey A. Salsberg, Counsel -- brief

• Jeffrey A. Lefstin and Peter S. Menell, Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Counsel -- brief

• WARF, Marshfield Clinic, and MCIS, Michelle Umbreger, Michael R. Osterhoff and Dan L. Bagatell, Counsel -- brief

• Intellectual Property Owners, Teige P. Sheehan, Counsel -- brief

• Paul Gilbert Cole, Donald L. Zuhn, Counsel -- brief

• New York Intellectual Property Law Association, John D. Murnane, Alicia Russo and Erin J.D. Austin, Counsel -- brief

• Jyant Technologies, Inc., Matthew J. Dowd, Robert A. Gutkin, and  Sushila Channana, Counsel -- brief

• Biotechnology Industry Organization and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Christopher M. Holman, Counsel -- brief

• Bioindustry Association, Konstantin M. Linnik, Lana A. Gladstein, and Issac A. Hubner, Counsel -- brief

• Amarantus Bioscience Holdings, Personalis, Inc., and Population Diagnostics, Inc., Maya Skubatch, Richard Torczon and Gideon A. Schor, Counsel -- brief

• Coalition for 21st Century Medicine, Benjamin G. Jackson and David C. Hoffman, Counsel -- brief