[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Walter Isaacson, Part 1
Clinton: SCOTUS Myriad Genetics Decision 'Terrific'
Can You Patent Human Genes? ACLU Says No
Yours, Mine and Ours (not yet!): An Update on the Patentability of Human Genes
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
When a person who has received an organ transplant experiences rejection, DNA from the transplanted organ is released into the bloodstream as the organ's cells are attacked by the person's immune system. The circulating DNA...more
Illumina has now filed its brief in opposition, completing the certiorari petitions/responses for all parties in the concurrent American Axle and Ariosa patent eligibility cases. True to form, neither of the filings in...more
The transcendental conundrum in patent law in these times is how to overcome the misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decisions on patent eligibility law by district courts and the Federal Circuit. That these courts...more
The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed Cybergenetics Corp.’s infringement suit after determining that the asserted claims—which recite mathematical algorithms for analyzing data taken from a DNA...more
Claims Covering Human Engineering That Exploit a Naturally-Occurring Phenomenon Are Patent Eligible - In Illumina, Inc. V. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Appeal No. 19-1419, the Federal Circuit modified its earlier decision...more
ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna. Modified opinion following Ariosa rehearing petition. Summary: The Federal Circuit modified its earlier decision and clarified the difference...more
Case Summary- On March 17, 2020, the Federal Circuit found that patents claiming methods of preparing an extracellular fraction of cell-free DNA that is enriched in fetal DNA were patent eligible and not invalid under 35...more
ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Northern District of California. Summary: Use of a natural phenomenon in a method of preparation claim found patent eligible...more
In Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a divided panel of the Federal Circuit found claims directed to methods of preparing DNA samples for analysis satisfy the patent eligibility requirement of 35 USC § 101. Although...more
The Federal Circuit, in Illumina, Inc., v. Ariosia, reversed the summary judgment decision of a lower trial court and upheld—as patent subject matter eligible—claims in two patents (U.S. 9,580,751; U.S. 9,738,931). The...more
The BRCA2 gene is one member of a pair of genes that changed the patent landscape several years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that "mere" isolation was insufficient to render genomic embodiments thereof patent eligible,...more
On August 9, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a public opinion in Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. LABOKLIN GmbH & Co. KG, finding claims directed to methods for detecting a genetic marker for a canine hereditary disease...more
In Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Laboklin GMBH & Co., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court decision that held claims directed to methods for genotyping a Labrador Retriever invalid under 35 USC § 101 at the...more
For a long time, the hallmarks of patentability of an invention were basically two: is it new? is it non-obvious? If both answers were “yes,” then—provided that the patent itself was properly written—you’d get your patent. A...more
As the readers of this blog are no doubt aware, patenting DNA defined only by a naturally occurring nucleotide sequence was banned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Association for Molecular Pathology v....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
In Genetic Techs Ltd v Merial LLC (Fed. Cir., April 8, 2016), the Federal Circuit invalidated yet another diagnostic patent for failing to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the ground that the claims recite nothing more than a law...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
Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2016) (Prost, DYK, Taranto) (D. Del.: Stark) (4 of 5 stars) - Federal Circuit affirms judgment that patent claims are invalid under § 101. Genetic...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
Clearly the High Court has given an answer to a question, but was that question the one we anticipated? That in itself is an open question!...more
Like the United States Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia has determined that Myriad’s patents directed to purified and isolated DNA molecules encoding the BRCA genes are unpatentable. Indeed, the Australian Court...more
In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), a Federal Circuit panel held that Sequenom Inc.’s prenatal diagnosis patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under the two-step test of Mayo...more