What characteristics of a claim do the courts use to determine if a claimed invention meets the statutory requirements under 35 USC §101? This question has been vexing patent attorneys for years, with the question becoming more important in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski and its progeny. While no one characteristic of … Continue Reading
In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostic LLC, the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dealt another blow to the patent eligibility of diagnostic methods and the growing field of personalized medicine. Cleveland Clinic obtained three patents (US Patent Nos. 7,223,552, 7,459,286 and 8,349,581) directed to the use of the activity and/or levels myeloperoxidase (MPO) or a … Continue Reading
The USPTO issued a memorandum to the examining corps entitled Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Rulings (Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect and Sequenom v. Ariosa) on July 14, 2016. The Patent 213 Blog has previously reviewed each of these cases. The USPTO notes that the decisions do not change the subject matter eligibility framework and that … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit threw down the gauntlet, and we are waiting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up. Sequenom’s petition for certiorari was scheduled for conference on June 23rd; the Court’s decision whether to hear the case will likely be announced next week. In the Federal Circuit en banc opinion denying … Continue Reading
What does the Federal Circuit really think about the Supreme Court’s recent § 101 jurisprudence? The denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom in November of 2015 answers that question. The 30-page panel opinion in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc can be boiled down to … Continue Reading
