While I do not usually write about non-precedential decisions, In re: Brown caught my eye as an interesting patent eligibility case. It does not relate to diagnostics or computer programs, but rather to the art of cutting...more
On April 5, 2016, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Rapid Litigation Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect Inc., where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held invalid claims directed to a “method of...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
4/12/2016
/ Biotechnology ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Diagnostic Method ,
DNA ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(6) ,
Genetic Technologies Ltd. ,
Machine-or-Transformation Test ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
SCOTUS
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
Judge Gaughan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss after finding three Cleveland Clinic Foundation diagnostic patents invalid under 35 USC § 101. While the...more
The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) has issued final patent eligibility guidance under the Australian High Court’s decision in D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Where the USPTO extrapolated from the U.S. Supreme Court...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
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 has denied the petition for rehearing en banc in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., despite the filing of twelve amicus briefs in support of the petition, including briefs filed by Biotechnology...more
Colleagues in Australia have been spreading the bad news: The High Court of Australia followed the lead (?) of the U.S. Supreme Court and determined that Myriad cannot patent the isolated BRCA1 gene in Australia. Thanks to...more
10/9/2015
/ AMP v Myriad ,
Australia ,
Biotechnology ,
Chilling Effect ,
Genetic Materials ,
Innovation ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Monopolization ,
Myriad ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Scope of the Claim ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
Sequenom, Inc. has filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit decision that held its diagnostic method claims invalid under 35 USC § 101. (You can read my synopsis of that decision here). Stakeholders in...more
8/18/2015
/ En Banc Review ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Myriad ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Sequenom
In Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., the Federal Circuit outlined the permitted extent of judicial review of Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review proceedings conducted by the USPTO Patent Trial and...more
7/23/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., addressed several important issues relating to post-grant patent trials conducted by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including the PTAB’s...more
6/24/2015
/ Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Microsoft ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Remand ,
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
While Sequenom’s appeal of the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent 6,258,540 under 35 USC § 101 has been pending at the Federal Circuit, the USPTO has been considering the validity of the patent...more
As I write this there’s a voice in my head saying, “Be careful what you wish for!” but it has been five months since Sequenom was argued at the Federal Circuit, and the court has yet to issue its decision. In the meantime,...more
Although Sequenom has settled its dispute over U.S. Patent 6,258,540 with some parties, its case against Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. remains active. Thus, we all should be waiting with bated breath to see whether the Federal...more
In a decision issued December 17, 2014, in In Re BRCA1- And BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation (Myriad II), the Federal Circuit invalidated Myriad’s primer claims and detection method claims under 35 USC §...more
The USPTO issued interim guidelines on 101 (“Interim Guidance”) on December 15, 2014. We summarized the Interim Guidance in this post, and now highlight five things practitioners and stakeholders need to know as they consider...more
In a case styled as In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation (also known as Myriad v. Ambry), the Federal Circuit held four of Myriad’s “primer” claims and two of Myriad’s detection method claims...more
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
As a leader in science, technology and innovation, the United States long has played a central role in global intellectual property matters. As the world’s largest economy, the United States has played a central role in trade...more
In its third opinion reviewing the same district court decision, the Federal Circuit this time affirmed the district court’s grant of WildTangent’s motion to dismiss Ultramercial’s patent infringement complaint because the...more
Judge Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Genetic Technologies, Ltd.’s patent infringement suit with regard to claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5,612,179 on the basis that...more