Is Biotech Patentable Subject Matter?
Can You Patent Human Genes? ACLU Says No
Yours, Mine and Ours (not yet!): An Update on the Patentability of Human Genes
Following the June 19 anniversary, it's now been 11 years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International — a case that declared a new test for when claims are ineligible for being directed to...more
Since the Alice v. CLS Bank and Mayo v. Prometheus decisions, district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has struggled to determine and navigate the boundary between what is and what is not...more
In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided a number of cases, including Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, which...more
On October 23, 2020, in a remarkable order demonstrating how a “bitterly divided” Federal Circuit views post-Alice patent eligibility jurisprudence, the court denied the motion of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. (“AAM”)...more
Patent eligibility is a bit of a mess these days. Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the Alice v. CLS Bank decision six years ago, the distinction between what might be subject matter that can be patented and what is...more
There is a belief in some quarters that the most significant barrier to patent subject matter eligibility reform is an implacable opposition by companies in the high tech sector because those companies are convinced that the...more
On April 17, 2019, Senators Tillis (R-NC) and Coons (D-DE), along with a bipartisan group of three members of the House of Representatives, announced the release of a framework on Section 101 patent reform. Senators Tillis...more
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice Corp v. CLS Bank created a three-part test for determining subject matter eligibility of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 that has unfortunately led to...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued new guidance to patent examiners in light of the Federal Circuit’s recent holdings in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green...more
The tortured path that the Federal Circuit has taken (a path also trodden by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the district courts) of applying the patent eligibility decisions under Mayo Collaborative Services v....more
We wrote earlier about the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in patent eligibility and seemingly unintended confusion between the patent eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the remaining patentability requirements...more
On December 5, 2016 the USPTO will hold its second Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Roundtable to discuss issues in patent eligibility. The USPTO published a list of eighteen questions in anticipation of the event, dealing...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
On Thursday, May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court’s finding of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as an unpatentable abstract idea, of a software patent concerning a “self-referential” database in Enfish v....more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware accepted Merck’s arguments that method of treatment patents asserted by BMS against its Keytruda product “touch[] upon a natural phenomenon” such that they should be...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
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
The Federal Circuit has issued six decisions since December 1, 2015, all of course invalidating the patents in suit, four per curiam (Clear With Computers v. Altec Indus; Cloud Satchel v. Amazon.com; Wireless Media...more
Due to the rapidly shifting requirement for subject matter eligibility, some patent examiners seem to believe that, when it comes to software inventions, they are entitled to assume the invention is not patent eligible...more
By a poll of active justices, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an en banc rehearing of Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Sequenom, Inc. et al. and issued two concurrences and one...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
Patent Claims (and Specification) Lacking in Detail Fail under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - The Federal Circuit issued an opinion on December 28, 2015 in the case captioned Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA,...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
Although the general rule (based on 35 USC section 101) is that anything made by humans is patentable, there are exceptions. Laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Inventions that fall in...more