Tag Archives: Sequenom

USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidance In View Of CellzDirect And Sequenom

On July 14, 2016, the USPTO issued a Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps on patent eligibility in view of recent court decisions. The July 2016 Memorandum extracts more guidance for assessing patent eligibility from the Federal Circuit decision in CellzDirect, and notes that the Supreme decision denying certiorari in Sequenom “does not elevate” the significance of the panel decision … Continue reading this entry

Supreme Court Deals Blow To Diagnostic Method Patents, Denies Cert In Sequenom

“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” can be good words to live by, but in the context of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Sequenom (scroll down to page 3), the silence is deafening–and could have a chilling impact on innovation in the fields of diagnostic and personalized medicine. Without knowing … Continue reading this entry

Methods Exploiting Junk DNA May Be Useful But Lack Patent Eligibility

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 USC § 101. Although Judge Dyk found the claims at issue to be similar to claims held invalid in other Federal Circuit … Continue reading this entry

Sequenom Throws Diagnositc Method Patents At The Mercy Of The Supreme Court

It comes as no surprise that Sequenom has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the Federal Circuit decision that upheld the district court decision that held its diagnostic method claims invalid for failing to satisfy the patent eligibility requirements of 35 USC § 101. With no relief from Congress … Continue reading this entry

Judge Lourie Suggests Jepson Claims For Patent Eligibility

As reported previously, the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. I wrote about Judge ‘Dyk’s opinion concurring in the denial but offering alternative views on patent eligibility in this article. Here, I look at the other concurring opinion, which was authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judge Moore. … Continue reading this entry

Judge Dyk Would Add Reduction To Practice To Patent Eligibility Requirement

As noted in this 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 (joined by Judge Moore) and one authored by Judge Dyk, and one dissenting opinion authored by Judge Newman. Here, I look at Judge Dyk’s concurrence. … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing In Sequenom

The Federal Circuit has denied the petition for rehearing en banc in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., despite the filing of twelve amicus briefs in support of the petition, including briefs filed by Biotechnology Industry Organization and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, numerous innovator companies in the diagnostic space, and law professors. The en banc order was accompanied … Continue reading this entry

Sequenom Seeks Rehearing En Banc

Sequenom, Inc. has filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit decision that held its diagnostic method claims invalid under 35 USC § 101. (You can read my synopsis of that decision here). Stakeholders in the diagnostic and personalized medicine space will be watching to see if the court grants the petition and … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Holds Sequenom Diagnostic Method Patent Invalid Under 101

The Federal Circuit has issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., affirming the district court’s finding that Sequenom’s claims are invalid under 35 USC § 101. The court’s decision shows the sweeping impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo v. Prometheus on the patent eligibility of diagnostic methods, and could have a ripple effect … Continue reading this entry

Another Sequenom Patent Appeal Heads To The Federal Circuit

While Sequenom’s appeal of the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent 6,258,540 under 35 USC § 101 has been pending at the Federal Circuit, the USPTO has been considering the validity of the patent under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 in an Inter Partes Review proceeding. Now that the decision of the Patent … Continue reading this entry

Waiting On Sequenom

As I write this there’s a voice in my head saying, “Be careful what you wish for!” but it has been five months since Sequenom was argued at the Federal Circuit, and the court has yet to issue its decision. (You can read my summary of the oral arguments here.) In the meantime, neither the … Continue reading this entry

Validity Of Sequenom Patent Still To Be Decided

Although Sequenom has settled its dispute over U.S. Patent 6,258,540 with some parties (as I noted here), its case against Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. remains active. Thus, we all should be waiting with bated breath to see whether the Federal Circuit determines that the claims of the Sequenom patent satisfy 35 USC § 101.… Continue reading this entry

Sequenom Deal May Avoid Federal Circuit Decision

Less than a month after their case was argued at the Federal Circuit, Illumina Inc. and Sequenom Inc. have announced a deal to settle their patent infringement litigation. While I haven’t seen an order dismissing the case, that is a likely next step. … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Looks For Inventive Concept In Sequenom Patent

On November 7, 2014, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., where Sequenom is appealing the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity under 35 USC § 101. The active questioning by the judges suggests that they are wrestling with how to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo to different … Continue reading this entry