Is Biotech Patentable Subject Matter?
Can You Patent Human Genes? ACLU Says No
Yours, Mine and Ours (not yet!): An Update on the Patentability of Human Genes
Despite an understandable amount of gloom and doom in patenting circles regarding the effects of the recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence on life sciences patents (Mayo v. Prometheus; AMP v. Myriad Genetics;...more
In its July 5, 2016 decision in Rapid Litigation Management Ltd and In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corp., the Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to an improved method of cryopreserving...more
Last week the United States Supreme Court denied Sequenom’s petition to review the Federal Circuit’s holding in Sequenom Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostic Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (2015) that claims directed to detecting fetal DNA in...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
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
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
The patent eligibility examples published by the USPTO on May 5, 2016 include two new examples relating to diagnostic methods and two new examples relating to “nature-based” products. This article will consider the diagnostic...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
It comes as no surprise that Sequenom has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the Federal Circuit decision that upheld the district court decision that held its diagnostic method...more
On March 21, 2015, Sequenom filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, et al. (No. 15-1182). In its petition, Sequenom calls its case the “ideal vehicle” for the...more
By a poll of active justices, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an en banc rehearing of Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Sequenom, Inc. et al. and issued two concurrences and one...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
There is no point in crying over spilled milk. The denial of an en banc hearing in the above case is now history. Apart from looking at the small print for pointers towards a more moderate approach, the focus now shifts to...more
The “prognosis” for patentability of medical diagnostic claims remains uncertain after an order of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (“Court”) denying a petition for an en banc rehearing of its decision in Ariosa...more
As reported previously, the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. I wrote about Judge ‘Dyk’s opinion concurring in the denial but offering alternative views on patent eligibility...more
On December 2, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in the closely watched Sequenom case. Earlier this year, on appeal from the U.S. District Court...more
As noted in a previous article, the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.. The per curiam order was accompanied by two separate concurring opinions, one authored by Judge Lourie...more
The Federal Circuit declined to rehear en banc the panel decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom. This decision was not surprising but what may be surprising was that only three judges wrote opinions, one in dissent (Judge Newman)...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
Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more
Recently, I had the privilege of speaking at the annual meeting of the American Society of Pharmacognosy in Colorado. Members of this scientific association are dedicated to identifying and isolating natural products from...more