Tag Archives: Prometheus

Update From The May 9, 2014 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines Forum

On May 9, 2014, the USPTO hosted a forum to receive public feedback on the patent subject matter eligibility guidance for examiners circulated on March 4, 2014. The USPTO heard formal presentations from ten speakers (including myself) and comments from audience members. Most speakers suggested alternative approaches to applying the Supreme Court’s “product of nature” and “law … Continue reading this entry

A Look At The Myriad Gene Patent Claims And The USPTO Memo To Examiners On Myriad

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decision in the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patents case (Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), people are wondering what the decision means for the Myriad patents and BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing. If you missed it, this article provides an overview of the Supreme Court Myriad decision. Here, I review … Continue reading this entry

Deja Vu All Over Again In Federal Circuit's August 16 Myriad Decision

On August 16, 2012, just four weeks after it heard oral arguments, the Federal Circuit issued its second decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (the ACLU ”gene patenting”/BRCAI case), which was on remand in view of the Supreme Court’s March 20, 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus. The same three-judge panel heard the … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit To Hear Oral Arguments In Myriad Remand Today

Later today the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (the ACLU ”gene patenting”/BRCAI case), which is on remand in view of the Supreme Court decision in Mayo v. Prometheus. In advance of today’s hearing, the Federal Circuit asked for briefing on the following issue: What is the applicability … Continue reading this entry

Eli Lilly Suggests Bright-Line Rule In Myriad Amicus Brief

Eli Lilly filed an interesting amicus brief in the remand of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (the ACLU ”gene patenting”/BRCAI case). The Lilly brief focuses on claim 20 of Myriad’s U.S. Patent 5,747,282, and urges the Federal Circuit to adopt a bright-line rule that would hold any method claim that includes a step … Continue reading this entry

The United States Files Its Amicus Brief In Myriad

The briefs in the remand of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (the ACLU ”gene patenting”/BRCAI case) were due last Friday, June 15, 2012. While the views of the parties and other amici may be of interest to the Federal Circuit, I am particularly interested in the position taken in the U.S. Department of … Continue reading this entry

Smoke Signals or Smokescreen: The Ultramercial GVR

After the Supreme Court decided that the personalized medicine method claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. did not satisfy the patent eligibility requirements of 35 USC § 101, it was not surprising that the Court asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to take a second look … Continue reading this entry

Vlog: Why Prometheus Doesn't Govern Myriad But Might Impact It Anyway

I was honored to be invited by the Washington Legal Foundation to prepare a video commentary on the recent Supreme Court decision in Prometheus and its possible impact on the Myriad isolated DNA case for their Legally Brief series. Here’s what I had to say: WLF Legally Brief: Supreme Court Prometheus Patent Decision… Continue reading this entry

Understanding The Shifting Patent Landscape: My Latest Podcast For The Burrill Report

While the early arrival of spring weather has many of us turning our attention to our gardends, pharmaceutical companies are facing a number of new developments in the patent landscape. In this podcast interview for  The Burrill Report, I talk about Prometheus, Myriad, the compulsory license for Bayer’s Nexvar drug in India, and the status of … Continue reading this entry

Who's On First? The Supreme Court Struggles With The Patent-Eligibility Of Personalized Medicine Claims

On December 7, 2011, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. While the issue before the Court is patent-eligibility under 35 USC § 101, the arguments veered into the topic of patentability under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103, whether the Court intended to raise that issue or … Continue reading this entry

Supreme Court To Hear Oral Arguments In Two Important Cases This Week

This week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases that are important to the pharmaceutical industry: (i) Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S and (ii) Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.… Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Upholds Many Classen Method Claims, Also Limits Reach Of Safe Harbor

On August 31, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its second decision in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, which was on remand from the Supreme Court after Bilski v. Kappos. Judge Newman wrote the opinion for the court, which was joined by Chief Judge Rader, and holds that two of the three asserted patents recite … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Issues Mixed Decision On Myriad Claims

On July 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, also known as the ACLU/Myriad “gene patenting” case. In a mixed decision, the court held that “isolated DNA” claims are patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101, but that the “comparing” or “analyzing” method claims are not. With a … Continue reading this entry

Supreme Court Grants Cert In Mayo v. Prometheus

Today (June 20, 2011), the Supreme Court granted Mayo’s petition for certiorari in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, which means that the Supreme Court will review the Federal Circuit decision that upheld the patent-eligibility of Prometheus’ personalized medicine claims against a Bilski-type challenge. As I wrote last week, it will be interesting to see … Continue reading this entry

Mayo Petitions for Certiorari Against Prometheus

On March 17, 2011, Mayo Collaborative Services filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Federal Circuit’s December 2010 decision in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services. Mayo asserts that the case raises the question “whether a patentee can monopolize basic, natural biological relationships,” and urges the Court to decide … Continue reading this entry

Who Will Infringe That Method Claim?

In Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the requirements for establishing joint infringement--a theory of direct infringement that may be used when a single party does not perform all of the steps of a method claim. The decision provides a good reminder to consider "who" is likely to perform each step of a method claim. This analysis can be particularly important in the context of diagnostic and personalized medicine methods. … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Upholds Personalized Medicine Claims

The Federal Circuit decided for the second time that the personalized medicine claims at issue in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services satisfy the requirements for patent-eligibility set forth in 35 U.S.C. ¬ß 101, even under the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos. In so doing, the court followed a two-part analysis that provides a framework for analyzing other method claims that may raise similar issues. … Continue reading this entry

Catching A Breath After Bilksi

On Monday, June 28, 2010, the last day of its 2009 term, the Supreme Court finally issued its decision in Bilski v. Kappos. While the case directly addresses the patent-eligibility of “business method patents,” many in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries were concerned that the Court might take this opportunity to limit the circumstances under … Continue reading this entry