Since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), “diagnostic” patent claims have repeatedly...more
In an attempt to broaden a patent’s disclosure and provide Section 112 support for features that are not explicitly disclosed within the patent’s specification (such as reagents, assays, techniques, etc.), patent applications...more
For the second time in as many weeks, the Federal Circuit has reversed a district court’s finding of patent ineligibility under Section 101 in the life science space, this time concluding that claims directed to methods of...more
“We live in a natural world, and all inventions are constrained by the laws of nature . . . we must be careful not to overly abstract claims when performing the Alice analysis.”...more
In Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that claims covering methods for diagnosing neurological disorders by detecting autoantibodies are...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
4/14/2016
/ AMP v Myriad ,
Biotechnology ,
Diagnostic Method ,
DNA ,
Life Sciences ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Sequenom
On March 21, 2016, Sequenom filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to provide clarification regarding the limits of 35 U.S.C §101 as it relates to patent eligibility of diagnostic tests....more
On December 2, 2015, an almost unanimous Federal Circuit decision was issued denying the en banc rehearing of Ariosa v. Sequenom, a case having significant consequences for diagnostic patents and Section 101 case law in...more