Photo of Nicholas J. Landau, Ph.D.

Nicholas J. Landau, Ph.D.

Subscribe to Nicholas J. Landau, Ph.D.'s Posts

Dr. Nicholas Landau is experienced in the procurement, protection, and litigation of patents, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property. He has drafted, prosecuted, and successfully appealed dozens of patent applications. Dr. Landau has worked with patents in a broad array of technological disciplines and has extensive knowledge in the areas of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, and environmental technology. View articles by Nicholas

B.S. Environmental Science
Ph.D. Environmental Science with a Concentration in Environmental Microbiology

Patent Registration Number: 57,120

Follow: Nicholas's Twitter Profile

Inventors of methods of medical testing have had a rough time since the Supreme Court decided Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs. Inc. In the Mayo case, the Court considered whether a method of determining whether a patient is receiving the proper dosage of thioguanine drugs is eligible for patenting, when the method involved measuring the concentration of a specific metabolite of thioguanine in the patient’s blood. The inventor had determined the safe range of dosages was not based not on the dosage itself (which varied a great deal from person to person), but depended on the concentration of the metabolite. The Court concluded that the patent merely claimed a relationship between metabolite concentration, safety, and efficacy of the drug, which without more is not an invention.

Since Mayo was decided, courts have invalidated numerous medical testing patents as subject matter that is not eligible for patenting (See, e.g., Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, Genetic Tech. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., SmartGene, Inc. v Advanced Biological Labs.,  and PerkinElmer Inc. v Intema Ltd.).

A Rare Win for a Medical Testing Patent in <i>Exergen Corporation V. Kaz USA, Inc.</i>This makes the recent decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Exergen Corp. v. Kas USA, Inc. something of a unicorn. Exergen patented a forehead thermometer that functions by measuring the radiative output of the skin at least three times per second, identifying a peak temperature that indicates that the thermometer has passed over an artery, and executing an algorithm based on the peak temperature and the ambient air temperature to calculate the patient’s core body temperature. Some of the asserted patent claims included the limitation that the artery is the temporal artery (located in the side of the forehead). The Exergen thermometer has the advantage over prior art thermometers of measuring a patient’s core temperature noninvasively, a benefit every parent can appreciate. Several companies, including Kaz, offered similar forehead thermometers, and Exergen filed several infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which were consolidated only for claim construction purposes. Among other defenses, Kaz alleged that all of Exergen’s asserted patent claims were invalid as non-eligible subject matter for patenting under the Mayo decision.

The Trial Court Decision

At trial the judge ruled from the bench that the asserted claims were eligible subject matter as a matter of law. The jury found that Kaz infringed the patents and awarded damages. On appeal Kaz argued that the trial court had impermissibly decided the question of patent eligibility without sending the relevant factual questions to the jury, and, in the alternative, that Exergen’s claims were not patent eligible as a matter of law.

The Appellate Decision

Among the claims at issue were both method claims and apparatus claims. Claim 24 of the ‘685 was considered by the appellate court as typical of the apparatus claims, and reads as follows:

A body temperature detector comprising:

a radiation detector; and

electronics that measure radiation from at least three readings per second of the radiation detector as a target skin surface over an artery is viewed, the artery having a relatively constant blood flow, and that process the measured radiation to provide a body temperature approximation, distinct from skin surface temperature, based on detected radiation.

Note that the electronics are defined mainly by their function. Claim 14 of the ‘938 was considered by the appellate court as typical of the method claims, and reads as follows:

  1. A method of detecting human body temperature comprising

making at least three radiation readings per second while moving a radiation detector to scan across a region of skin over an artery to electronically determine a body temperature approximation, distinct from skin surface temperature.

The court applied the general test in Alice for patent eligibility (readers of this blog can review the Alice test here). The court found that the claims fell under the categories of subject matter Congress intended should be patented, as expressed in 35 U.S.C. § 101, as “machines” and “processes.” The court went on to conclude the claims were “directed to” one of the judge-made exceptions to the statutory categories, specifically the “law of nature” that physiologic core temperature is a function of skin temperature above an artery and ambient temperature. Based on these two conclusions, a claim would not be eligible for patenting unless as a whole it encompasses “substantially more” than natural law itself.

Kaz argued that the claims were not substantially more than the simple recognition of the relationship between skin temperature above an artery, ambient temperature, and core temperature. In Kaz’s view, the remaining parts of the claims were “conventional, well understood” elements. In support of this argument, Kaz cited the undisputed fact that the use of infrared radiation measurements of the skin to detect internal injuries was known before Exergen’s invention, and such measurements were made at a rate exceeding three readings per second.

The appellate court disagreed with Kaz’s argument and affirmed the district court’s finding that the claims were directed to substantially more than the natural law. Regarding the older method of detecting internal injury, the court pointed out that “Something is not well-understood, routine, and conventional merely because it is disclosed in a prior art reference… This case is not like either Mayo or Ariosa, where well-known, existing methods were used to determine the existence of a natural phenomenon.” In other words, the inventors in Mayo and Ariosa identified the relationship between an analyte and a condition, and claimed measuring the analyte by only well-understood, routine, and conventional methods (in Mayo the broadest claims were not specific to the measurement methods at all). Exergen’s claims included an unconventional method of determining core body temperature, which was novel independent of the recognition of the specific relationship between the temperature of the skin above an artery and the patient’s core body temperature. Although body radiation sensors were known, none had been configured to convert skin temperature to core temperature; although methods of measuring skin temperature with a radiation sensor were known, none had specifically measured skin temperature above and artery and converted it to core temperature.

How Does Exergen Fit with Current Case Law?

Comparing Exergen to Mayo, in Mayo the measurement of the metabolite was claimed generally, not by any specific method, conventional or otherwise. Measuring the metabolite was well-known and conventional. The claims in Mayo thus involved only a well-known and conventional step, in combination with reaching a diagnosis. Although the criteria used for the diagnosis were not previously known, others had tried to use the metabolite concentration to diagnose the same condition using different criteria. In contrast, Exergen claimed steps that had never been performed before — measuring skin temperature over an artery by radiometry, in addition to the more abstract steps of calculating core temperature.

The distinctions between this case and Ariosa are more subtle, and the two cases might seem inconsistent. The patent in Ariosa did claim steps that had never been performed before; namely, it recited amplifying paternal DNA in a maternal whole blood sample. The court focused on the fact that the paternal DNA was claimed to be measured by conventional methods (polymerase chain reaction), so that nothing substantial was added to the concept of measuring the paternal DNA itself. In Exergen, the court defined the measured property as body core temperature, and found that it was neither routine nor conventional to measure body core temperature as claimed. However, if the court had considered ultra-arterial skin temperature to be the measured property, instead of core temperature, it might have concluded that the claimed steps were conventional and well-understood ways of measuring it.

This distinction can serve as guidance going forward: Defining exactly what is being measured can be determinative of the Alice analysis of medical tests. Those seeking to patent or defend medical testing claims could benefit from defining the measured property narrowly. Alternatively, those seeking to invalidate medical testing patents should seek to define the measured property broadly as something that has been measured before in the same way. For example, does the invention measure core temperature by measuring ultra-arterial skin temperature by radiometry, or does it measure skin temperature by radiometry? The latter steps were known in the prior art, while the former were not.

In 2011 the Supreme Court announced that methods of diagnosing disease are ineligible for patenting under its landmark decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2011). The decision, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, reasoned that measuring the concentration of a biomarker (in that case a drug metabolite) and diagnosing a patient as either overdosed or under-dosed is nothing more than making a decision based on a natural law. This was the first of three major Supreme Court decisions remaking U.S. patent law to exclude many forms of biotechnology and information technology (the other two being Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)). A recent decision by a federal district court, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd. et al. v. Praxair Distribution, Inc., Case No. 15-170-GMS (D. Del., Sep. 5, 2017), imposed new restrictions on how these decisions are applied to diagnostic methods.

The Alice Test for Patent Eligibility

The current test for subject matter eligibility under these decisions (as restated in Alice) has been described as a two-part test, but in fact the test has three distinct parts. The first step is to determine whether the claim is one of the categories of subject matter Congress intended should be patented, as expressed in 35 U.S.C. § 101: “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or new and useful improvement thereof” (the “statutory categories”). If the first answer is “no,” then the claim is not eligible subject matter. If the first answer is “yes,” the second step is to determine whether the claim is “directed to” one of the judge-made exceptions to the statutory categories: an abstract idea, a physical phenomenon, or a law of nature. If the second answer is “no,” then the claim is eligible. If the second answer is “yes,” then the third step is to determine whether the claim as a whole encompasses “substantially more” than the judicial exception itself. Finally, if the answer to the third step is “yes,” then the claim is patent eligible; if it is “no,” then the claim is not patent eligible.

Treatment Based on Diagnosis Prior to Mallinckrodt

Decisions following Mayo generally concluded that an invention involving the diagnosis of a disease is eligible for patenting if it involves another unconventional step, such as administering a course of medication based on the diagnostic step. A treatment step is considered to add “substantially more” to the claim, particularly when the treatment depends on the diagnosis. Such decisions follow the Federal Circuit’s decision in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Classen the invention was a method of designing a schedule of immunizations to reduce the occurrence of side effects, coupled with administering the immunizations according to the schedule. Because immunizing patients is a concrete step, and because following the inventive schedule was neither conventional nor well-understood, the court decided that it added “substantially more” to the claim than just the understanding of the natural law underlying the relationship between the immunization schedule and the side effects.

The Classen rule is followed by the USPTO, which incorporated a similar example in its official guidance on subject matter eligibility (Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Life Sciences, May 4, 2016), and cites Classen in its patent examiner’s manual (see MPEP 2106.05(e), inter alia). In Example 19 of the Life Sciences Examples, a hypothetical claim is presented for performing a diagnostic test that distinguishes between two frequently confused diseases (julitis and rosacea) followed by administering a treatment for julitis (that is ineffective against rosacea) if the biomarker is present. The public has of course relied upon the Classen decision, the MPEP, and the USPTO’s guidance in evaluating whether diagnostic technologies can be patented.

In a later decision by the Federal Circuit, claims for diagnosis alone were held ineligible, but the patent eligibility for accompanying claims for treatment based on a diagnosis were not even challenged by the accused infringer. See Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, Case No. 2016-1766 (Fed. Cir., June 16 2017).

The Conflicting Mallinckrodt Decision

Infant being examined in an incubatorIn a departure from the previous trend, a district court judge in the Federal District Court of Delaware (one of the more influential patent venues) held that diagnosing a disease followed by treating the disease based on the diagnosis is not eligible for patenting.

In Mallinckrodt, the district court considered claims to a method of treating hypoxia in newborns with nitric oxide while reducing the risk of a deadly side effect, pulmonary edema. The inventors discovered that infants with impaired function of the left ventricle are at elevated risk for pulmonary edema if treated with nitric oxide. The asserted claims of the patents in suit included claims to diagnosing a hypoxic infant for left ventricular dysfunction by echocardiography, and administering an appropriate concentration of nitric oxide only in the absence of left ventricular dysfunction. As in Classen, the claims involved a medical intervention based on the result of the diagnostic step. Unlike Classen, the trial court in Mallinckrodt held that the use of previously known treatment methods based on the diagnosis does not add “significantly more” to the understanding of the natural law.

The trial court found that the connection between left ventricular dysfunction and an infant’s vulnerability to pulmonary edema when given nitric oxide is an ineligible law of nature, and that administering nitric oxide only when left ventricular dysfunction is absent is not “substantially more” than recognizing the connection, because nitric oxide is a conventional and well-understood treatment for hypoxia. The court found that echocardiography as the method of detecting left ventricular dysfunction did not add “substantially more” to the claim, either, because echocardiography was also a conventional and well-understood way to detect left ventricular dysfunction.

Oddly, the court in Mallinckrodt neither cited nor considered Classen. Although it cited Cleveland Clinic, the important distinction between the claims that included the treatment step and those with only the diagnosis step was not discussed or even recognized. This decision then appears to conflict with Classen, and without any analysis of Classen in Mallinckrodt it can only be guessed why the two decisions diverge (apart from the usual lack of judicial consistency when it comes to patent eligibility). In Classen the immunizations, while claimed at a high level of generality, were administered according to a new and unconventional schedule. In Mallinckrodt, a known treatment (nitric oxide) was claimed to be withheld from a certain population of patients, which was new and unconventional. In both cases the drugs themselves were well-known, but the pattern of whether and when to administer the drugs was not. One distinction between the inventions in these cases is that Mallinckrodt involved a binary decision to “administer or not administer” the drug, while Classen involved chronologically scheduling the administration of the drug. If the lesson of Mallinckrodt is that providing or withholding a given treatment based on a diagnosis is not “significantly more” than the treatment itself, then it conflicts with the USPTO’s public guidance in the MPEP and the Life Sciences Examples.

Does Mallinckrodt Change Anything?

The trial court’s decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is the appeals court with jurisdiction over all patent appeals. If the Federal Circuit adopts Mallinckrodt and abandons Classen, it will deal another significant blow to those developing advanced diagnostic methods. At the very least it would call into question the settled understanding of the public (and the officials at the USPTO) that methods of treatment tied to methods of diagnosis can still be patented. However, even if the decision in Mallinckrodt is affirmed, planning the funeral for American diagnostic patents may be premature. For those who value predictability in the application of the law, it may be hoped that the Federal Circuit will either reverse the decision in Mallinckrodt, or somehow reconcile these cases.

The Government Whittles Away at Life Sciences PatentsThe current U.S. Supreme Court has been noted for its hostility to patent holders in general, but the Supreme Court has been especially hostile to any sort of life sciences or software invention.  The Court has attempted to carve out special exceptions to the congressional mandate that patents will be granted for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” to target inventions in software and the life sciences. However, it has done so unartfully by issuing vaguely worded decisions, leaving the regulated public in a cloud of great uncertainty. In an attempt to disperse this cloud of uncertainty, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued several lengthy statements as to how it will attempt to apply the Court’s decisions.

Up until now, the USPTO has provided guidance on software patents and patents for naturally derived products, but no guidance has been provided for the most vexing Supreme Court ban: the ban on methods of diagnosing disease. On May 2, 2016, the USPTO finally issued guidance on diagnostic methods and additional guidance on patenting naturally derived products. An especially helpful part of this guidance comes in the form of numerous specific examples of patent eligible and non-eligible life science inventions. The examples are summarized below.

Vaccines

One of the USPTO’s examples includes seven vaccine claims. The USPTO has taken the position that both killed and attenuated vaccines are patent eligible; the examples are for killed and attenuated virus particles, but the same logic should apply to other pathogens such as bacteria. Vaccines containing isolated antigens will also be allowed, if the vaccine contains another functionally significant ingredient, such as an adjuvant or a non-natural carrier that improves its function. However, the USPTO will not allow claims to a vaccine that is an isolated antigen in water or another carrier that does not affect the functioning of the vaccine. This is a significant departure from previous policy! Up until the present time, claims to any kind of pharmaceutical preparation comprising a natural compound (such as an antigen) and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier have been allowed, so long as the compound is not naturally found in the carrier.

This policy shift will make it difficult to patent new vaccines based on isolated antigens. Antigen-based vaccines have been a boon to humanity in their ability to prompt highly specific immunity with fewer side effects and less cross-reactivity. However, apparently these can only be patented in the future in combination with other ingredients that modify their effects. Despite this guidance, note that one can still claim a method of vaccinating a person by administering the antigen, although the scope of protection differs from claiming the vaccine itself.

Medical Diagnosis

Since the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in patents, methods of diagnosing disease have been one of the areas of technology that have been the hardest hit. The Supreme Court’s ban on medical diagnosis was especially obtuse, and the USPTO has probably waited until this time to articulate its policy in order to let lower courts attempt to make sense of it. The USPTO has now taken the position that a method of diagnosis is not patent eligible if it includes only conventional steps such as obtaining a biological sample and testing the sample for the presence of a biomarker. However, the USPTO will allow patents on methods of detecting the biomarker without making a diagnosis — but only if the method of detecting the biomarker meets the ordinary patenting requirements of newness and inobviousness.  Consequently, testing for a previously unknown biomarker can be patented, but the discovery that a known biomarker has a new diagnostic value cannot. In addition, the use of new diagnostic reagents can be patented, such as a recombinant antibody or a xeno-antibody. A method of treating the disease state with a new treatment after diagnosis can also be patented.

These examples support the status quo ante at the USPTO that methods of diagnosing disease by testing for the presence or concentration of biomarkers are banned from patenting.

Food Additives

Example #30 is a hypothetical dietary sweetener, but it could apply to any newly discovered natural product that is useful as a food additive. As in the vaccine example, the USPTO will not allow a claim to a natural sweetener in water. A claim to the sweetener in water at a specific concentration range will not be allowed either, unless the concentration in question imparts a non-natural property to the sweetener. On the other hand, claims to the sweetener in combination with other ingredients, with which it does not occur naturally, will be allowed. It is interesting to note that the USPTO has taken the position that a qualifier such as “in a controlled release formulation” will be allowed, as the property of controlled release does not occur naturally.

Just as a vaccine cannot be defined as a newly discovered antigen, alone or in a generic carrier, a food additive cannot be defined as a newly discovered natural compound, alone or in solution. In order to obtain a patent, the invention must be defined as the additive in combination with another ingredient that changes the additive’s properties.

Genetic Screening

The Supreme Court’s first ban against patenting life science inventions was directed at synthetic DNA for genetic screening, and this remains a somewhat difficult technology to patent in the U.S. When it comes to genetic screening, the USPTO will not allow patents for the simple act of comparing a patient’s genome to another sequence because this is viewed as an “abstract mental step.” However, methods of genetic screening can be patented that are limited to specific chemical methods of genetic comparison, such as probe hybridization in combination with a specific method of detecting the hybridized probe. The USPTO will also allow methods to be patented that include highly specific and unusual chemical reactions.  It is particularly interesting to note that methods of DNA hybridization and amplification that omit any step for evaluating the meaning of the results for the patient will be allowed.

Based on this guidance, it will continue to be difficult to patent methods of genetic screening if the gene in question was already known, regardless of whether its function was understood. It would appear that one can claim methods of detecting newly discovered genes, but the value of such claims in the era of big genomics is highly questionable.

What Hasn’t Changed?

Prior guidance from the USPTO does not appear to have been disturbed by the new guidance.  Patents will still be allowed for DNA and RNA with artificial sequences (such as cDNA), natural products with additives such as preservatives (such as preserved fruit juice), chemically modified forms of natural compounds with modified properties or functions (such as botanical compounds, humanized antibodies, chimeric antibodies, and antibiotics), methods of treating disease by administering natural substances as medicines, genetically modified organisms (such as bacteria and human cell lines), fluorescently labelled natural compounds, and genetic vectors containing natural genes.

Previous guidance has also stated that patents will not normally be allowed for the purified forms of anything natural (nucleic acids, antibodies, proteins, cell lines, etc.), except if purification somehow changes its structure and function. For example, if purifying a compound that is naturally in solution results in an unnatural crystalline form of the compound, then the purified compound can be patented.  Isolated nucleic acids having natural sequences seem to be categorically excluded. Although adding a natural compound to a pharmaceutical carrier will not result in a patent, the USPTO has previously said that claiming a natural compound in a capsule is allowed, although the reason for this difference is not completely clear. Combining natural things without changing their function cannot be patented, but any change in function of such natural things in combination as compared to uncombined can be the basis for a patent. For example, a microbial consortium can be patented only if the bacteria in combination accomplish something that no species could accomplish alone.

How to Adapt?

The USPTO guidance does not have the force of law, and there is no guarantee that courts will follow it. For the most part, the guidance is clear and generally well-reasoned based on the Supreme Court’s recent rulings. Innovative life sciences companies can adapt to the new landscape by evaluating their technology early in development to determine whether versions of the invention that are allowable in the United States have any commercial value. If not, then concentrate on the needs of markets outside of the United States where by and large patents still cover useful, newly discovered natural substances and methods of medical diagnosis.

It may be possible to keep newly discovered natural products or biomarkers as trade secrets where no regulatory approval is required. Even when regulatory approval is required, instead of seeking regulatory approval for the non-patentable natural compound, consider generating a chemically modified version, maintaining the natural parent compound as a trade secret, then applying for patent protection and regulatory approval only for the modified version. Other alternative strategies are possible depending on the situation.