[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Walter Isaacson, Part 1
Clinton: SCOTUS Myriad Genetics Decision 'Terrific'
Can You Patent Human Genes? ACLU Says No
Yours, Mine and Ours (not yet!): An Update on the Patentability of Human Genes
The transcendental conundrum in patent law in these times is how to overcome the misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decisions on patent eligibility law by district courts and the Federal Circuit. That these courts...more
Case Summary- On March 17, 2020, the Federal Circuit found that patents claiming methods of preparing an extracellular fraction of cell-free DNA that is enriched in fetal DNA were patent eligible and not invalid under 35...more
On Friday I will be speaking at the AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting, on a panel discussing patent eligibility issues for life sciences inventions. My topic relates to what the USPTO refers to as “nature-based products,” but...more
On August 9, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a public opinion in Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. LABOKLIN GmbH & Co. KG, finding claims directed to methods for detecting a genetic marker for a canine hereditary disease...more
For a long time, the hallmarks of patentability of an invention were basically two: is it new? is it non-obvious? If both answers were “yes,” then—provided that the patent itself was properly written—you’d get your patent. A...more
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Mayo and Alice decisions, uncertainty has surrounded what inventions are patent eligible in the United States. In Mayo and Alice, the Supreme Court developed a two-step test to determine...more
In Part I, I explained some general criteria for laws of nature, considering the prototypes of Newton's laws and Einstein's E=mc2. Now I'll turn to whether there are laws of nature in biology. Biological generalizations,...more
The Supreme Court today denied Sequenom Inc.’s petition for writ of certiorari, in which Sequenom asked the Court to review a decision of the Federal Circuit invalidating its patent on a breakthrough prenatal diagnostic...more
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Natera, Inc., and DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc. have filed briefs in opposition to Sequenom’s petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court for review of the Federal Circuit’s decision holding...more
Arguing that the current state of the law weakens the patent system and poses a danger to life science innovators, biotechnology company, Sequenom, Inc., has filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the...more
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
Striking another blow against patent eligibility in the field of biotechnology, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that methods that use “junk DNA” to detect genetic variations lack patent eligibility under 35...more
Last week, Appellee Natera, Inc. filed its response to the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellants Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC in August (see "Sequenom Requests Rehearing En...more
On Monday, Appellee Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. filed its response to the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellants Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC in August. In its response, Ariosa...more
More than three years after the June 15, 2012 deadline for providing it, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued its report on so-called "second opinion" genetic diagnostic testing, mandated by Section 27 of the...more
In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), a Federal Circuit panel held that Sequenom Inc.’s prenatal diagnosis patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under the two-step test of Mayo...more
Addressing the issue of patent eligibility of a pre-natal testing invention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s judgement of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with...more
With its recent (June 12, 2015) decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California’s broad interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Prometheus v. Mayo...more
On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”) that the method claims in U.S. Patent 6,258,540 (‘540 patent) for detecting...more
Background - In two recent cases, Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining eligibility for patenting. In step one, the court asks whether the claim is...more
The Preemption Requirement - Preemption is the core concern that drives the Court’s “exclusionary principle”. The Supreme Court in Alice stated...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its eighth annual list oftop patent stories. For 2014, we identified eighteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we...more
On December 17, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that certain claims relating to Myriad’s BRCA1 genetic test for breast and ovarian cancer were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being ineligible for patent...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today released its latest iteration of guidance—referred to as the "Interim Eligibility Guidance"—to its examiners. This guidance is aimed at assessing whether an invention claimed...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently taken a keen interest in whether certain subject matter is eligible to be patented under U.S. law1. In June 2013, the Supreme Court held in Myriad2 that patents on naturally-occurring DNA...more