A consequence (predominantly negative) of the Supreme Court's recent foray into defining (however inadequately) the contours of patent-eligible subject matter is to give the district courts (and to a somewhat lesser extent,...more
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant certiorari in Sequenom v. Ariosa (and in some quarters, considerably before that), many have voiced the opinion that only Congress can resolve the acknowledged...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its tenth annual list of top patent stories. For 2016, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
The Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) pronounced, in no uncertain terms, preemption “drives” patent subject matter eligibility and its exceptions. But after Alice, it appeared preemption’s...more
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
On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued new subject matter eligibility guidance for life science claims following a ruling by the Federal Circuit in Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, No....more
On May 4th the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued its latest Guidance on how Examiners are to apply recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent related to subject matter eligibility (see "USPTO Issues Update...more
On July 14, 2016, the USPTO issued a Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps on patent eligibility in view of recent court decisions. The July 2016 Memorandum extracts more guidance for assessing patent eligibility from the...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
“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” can be good words to live by, but in the context of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Sequenom, the silence is deafening–and could have a chilling impact...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
On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, denied Sequenom’s petition for certiorari, leaving in place the Court’s previous rulings prohibiting the patenting of laws of nature and natural phenomenon. ...more
The Supreme Court issued an order this morning denying certiorari in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. Patent Docs will provide more analysis of the Court's denial of certiorari in a subsequent post....more
The United States Supreme Court is set to render its decision on the grant or denial of Sequenom, Inc.’s (“Sequenom’s”) petition for writ of certiorari that posed the issue: ..Whether a novel method is patent-eligible...more
In March, following the Federal Circuit's denial of Sequenom's petition for rehearing en banc, Sequenom filed a petition for certiorari for Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit's decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v....more
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: An Overview - Why it matters: The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016 and gives trade secret owners a federal cause of action for injunctive...more
2016 has been a year of IP changes and these changes have had an effect upon biotechnology as well as trade secrets. Patents: Will the U.S. Supreme Court Grant Cert. In Ariosa v. Sequenom? Ariosa v. Sequenom was...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
Earlier this month, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued updated guidance to its examining corps concerning subject matter eligibility rejections and responses under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The 2016 Guidance,...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
In response to Sequenom's March 21 petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit's decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (see "Sequenom Petitions for Certiorari"), a total of...more
The biotechnology and life sciences community has voiced broad support for Sequenom’s recent request that the Supreme Court review the Federal Circuit’s decision holding Sequenom’s diagnostic fetal DNA patent ineligible under...more