Supplemental Brief for Appellees in AMP v. USPTO

by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact

[author: Andrew Williams]

On April 30th, the Federal Circuit issued an Order in the Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office case vacating its July 29, 2011 opinion and reinstating the appeal.  That Order was based on the Supreme Court's decision vacating the Federal Circuit's prior judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.  In addition, the Federal Circuit requested that both parties file supplemental briefs to address the following issue:  "What is the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo to Myriad's isolated DNA claims and the method claim 20 of the '282 patent?"  The Order also scheduled oral argument for this Friday, July 20, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.  As a preview of that hearing, we are providing a summary of the supplemental briefs from both parties.  This post will address the supplemental brief for Appellees Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. ("AMP").

AMPAMP alleges that Mayo "gave new vigor to three principles for determining whether a law/product of nature has been 'transformed' into something patentable."  The first of these principles is whether the claims "preempt what is unpatentable," for example laws and products of nature.  The second principle is that what is patented must either be based on an "inventive concept," "add enough" to the natural phenomena, or have "markedly different characteristics from any found in nature."  The third principle is that the court must make this determination without regard to industry reliance.  Of course, the significant difference between now and nearly a year ago when the original opinion was released is the Supreme Court's Mayo decision.  Therefore, it is important keep in mind what Mayo said, and more importantly, what Mayo did not say (regardless of what either party would like to read into the decision).

AMP's first argument is that the claims to isolated DNA preempt the use of laws/products of nature.  It begins by quoting Mayo (and other Supreme Court cases) for the proposition that patenting laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas is prohibited because "they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work."  Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293.  However, AMP does not cite to any Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that "products of nature" are not patentable, and indeed because it is a case about a claimed method, Mayo is basically silent on the issue.  Nevertheless, there is sufficient support for the idea that machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter can also run afoul of § 101, for example such as when they are "manifestations . . . of nature," as indicated in Chakrabarty.  Apparently to cover its bases, however, AMP points out that isolated DNA is both a law and product of nature -- the law is the correlation between the DNA and the BRCA protein, and the product is the DNA itself.  In other words, isolated DNA is the physical embodiment of the law of nature.  As support for this proposition, AMP alleges that isolated DNA can be reintroduced into a cell, and it will be able to "code for" and "transmit" the same protein with the same traits.  However, this is an oversimplification of the biology involved.  Clearly one cannot reinsert a naked piece of DNA, without more, into the cell and have any hope of obtaining an expressed protein.  In fact, figuring out what else would be required to get an expressed protein from an isolated DNA is not necessarily a trivial matter, and would be highly dependent on what cell you were reintroducing the DNA into.

Nevertheless, AMP highlights several "aspects" of the claims-at-issue that it alleges make "unduly preemptive of laws/products of nature" (emphasis added).  AMP's "unduly preemptive" aspects are (1) that because humans did not invent DNA, it is not possible to invent around the claims; (2) the disputed claims are broader than those in Mayo; (3) the claims "threaten to inhibit the development of more refined treatment recommendations"; (4) the claims pose a barrier to the development of targeted cancer therapies, and (5) the contested claims have already inhibited research.  In so noting these, however, AMP is implying that it is possible for something to be "less preemptive," and thereby make it patent eligible.  However, in doing so, AMP turns the Supreme Court's inquiry on its head.  In Mayo, the Court articulated (again) that laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas are not patent eligible.  The Court went on to explain that one of the reasons for this was the "concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of laws of nature."  However, the Mayo opinion made clear that Supreme Court precedent has "not distinguished among different laws of nature according to whether or not the principles they embody are sufficiently narrow."  Instead, as Mayo articulated, there is a bright-line prohibition against patenting laws of nature -- and so the inquiry must be whether isolated DNA claims are (or improperly incorporate) laws of nature.

AMP's second argument is that isolated DNA claims are not based on an inventive concept and therefore do not add enough to the law and/or product of nature to make them patent eligible.  AMP's argument is based on the Supreme Court Mayo decision, which pointed out that the claims at issue in that case were nothing more than informing the relevant audience about the law of nature (specifically the correlation of the levels of metabolites).  The fact that the claims also had "administering" and "determining" steps was irrelevant, because they were conventional steps, and therefore could not be considered to contribute to an "inventive concept."  In an attempt to analogize, AMP alleges that the techniques for the isolation of DNA are similarly well-known, and therefore would add nothing to the law and/or product of nature.  First, this argument presumes that the DNA itself is the law (or product) of nature, and the only difference between it and the isolated DNA is the process of isolating it.  However, Mayo dealt with a process claim, in which the recited claim steps themselves were found to be conventional -- because people had already been "administering" thiopurine drugs, and methods to "determine" the levels of 6-thioguanine were already known.  Therefore, all you were left with in the claim was the correlation -- or the law of nature.  In the present case, the claims are to the composition of matter of isolated DNA, regardless of how it was obtained.  The Federal Circuit previously found that isolated DNA consisted of a different chemical composition than the full-length DNA.  Mayo should not change the conclusion that isolated DNA did not exist in nature, regardless of whether isolating DNA is simply the application of conventional steps.

AMP also cites to Mayo as allegedly changing the "transformation" test, almost to the point of doing away with it in the case of chemical changes.  In Mayo, the Supreme Court rejected Prometheus' argument that both the body and the blood were transformed, which could have made the claims patent eligible.  First, the body was not transformed because the "administering" step merely selected the individuals for whom the law of nature was to be applied.  Second, the "determining" step was not transformative because the method could theoretically be done without transforming the blood.  In this case, isolated DNA was found to be transformative because there were at least covalent bonds broken.  AMP alleges that this is not enough, because such steps are routine.  However, just because the step itself might be routine doesn't mean that the selection of that step, or the decision of which starting chemical entity to use is also routine.  In fact, for chemical entities, such a line of reasoning is a slippery slope.  A lot of new small-molecule chemical entities can be obtained by routine steps, but this does not (and should not) preclude their patent eligibility.  To say that a composition of matter cannot be patent eligible simply because the methods used to obtain it were "routine" would have serious implications on the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.

AMP further cites to the fact that the use of small fragments of DNA in diagnostics is well known and conventional.  However, this is relevant to determining whether isolated DNA has utility, not whether it is a law/product of nature.  Therefore, such an argument is not well suited to the present case.

AMP's final argument against the patent eligibility of isolated DNA claims was that Mayo rejected the idea that you could rely on industry reliance as a factor in applying the law/product of nature doctrine.  In making this argument, however, AMP cited to its previous briefs, and those of their amici, that allegedly identified the harms of gene patents.  If Mayo teaches that you cannot consider the reliance on the industry in upholding the patents, it also has to stand that you cannot look to alleged harms that result from such patents.  Instead, the analysis should be whether the claims attempt to patent a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea.

As almost an afterthought, AMP briefly addresses method claim 20 of the '282 patent, but only to allege that it is indistinguishable from the method claims in Mayo.  However, other than pointing out that the claims are both method claims, AMP does not spend much time explaining why they were otherwise the same.  Instead, AMP analogizes the "growing" and "determining" steps of claim 20 to the "administering" and "determining" steps in Mayo, and concludes that the steps in claim 20 could not be transformative.  However, with all of the detail found in claim 20, it is difficult to see how it is simply a law of nature, and without more explanation, the Federal Circuit's decision regarding this claim should be the same.

For additional information regarding this topic, please see:

• "Biopharmaceutical Companies Weigh-In on Myriad Case," July 17, 2012
• "Health Care Professionals Contend That Isolated DNA and cDNA Are Patent Ineligible," July 16, 2012
• "Coalition of Amici File Brief in Support of Myriad," July 15, 2012
• "Dr. James Watson: Human Genes Should Not Be Patented," July 12, 2012
• "Scientist-Law Professor Files Amicus Brief in Myriad Case," July 11, 2012
• "U.S. Government: Mayo Decision Supports Prior Argument That Isolated Genomic DNA Is Not Patent Eligible," July 10, 2012
• "IPO Amicus Brief Argues for Patent Eligibility of Myriad's Isolated DNA Claims and Method Claim 20," July 9, 2012
• "Eli Lilly & Co. File Amicus Brief in AMP v. Myriad," June 27, 2012
• "Parties and Amici File Briefs in Myriad Case," June 17, 2012

 

Written by:

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact
more
less

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.