Patenting diagnostic methods is more challenging in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2012) (Prometheus) and the USPTO’s application of the decision, as set forth in its Guidance Document distributed to patent examiners. Patent examiners are advised to follow the Guidance Document in examining a process claim (e.g., medical method claim) in which a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or naturally occurring relation or correlation (collectively referred to as a natural principle in the Guidance Document) is a limiting element or step. Thus, a medical diagnostic claim that correlates or relates to a genetic marker or physiological measurement (typical in personalized medicine) is subject to the Guidance Document as the claim necessarily includes an element interpreted by the USPTO as a natural principle. Continue reading this entry
Following up on my post examining the Myriad gene patenting case, which is heading to the Supreme Court, I had the chance to discuss the subject with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN. In the interview, I discuss the legal and commercial issues at the core of the controversy, and whether or not genes are indeed patented.
On October 31, 2012, Myriad Genetics, Inc. et al. (“Respondent” or “Myriad”) filed its brief in opposition to Petitioners’ (The Association for Molecular Pathology et al., represented by the American Civil Liberties Union or “ACLU”) quest for U.S. Supreme Court review in the ongoing legal battle over whether isolated DNA is patent-eligible subject matter. Myriad argued that U.S. Supreme Court review is not warranted, and that if it is, the question for the Supreme Court is not whether human genes are patentable, but whether isolated DNA molecules that were identified and defined by human inventors are patent-eligible subject matter in the United States. Continue reading this entry
The biotechnology industry, including those investing in personalized medicine, have been waiting for the Federal Circuit’s decision that answers the questions whether isolated DNA and use of the isolated material are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As reported in our August 16th post, the same three judges (Lourie, Bryson and Moore) held that isolated DNA and cells transformed with the DNA are patent-eligible. Claims that broadly claim detecting alterations in a gene, in this case the BRCA1 gene, were held to be patent-ineligible. The Ass’n for Molecular Pathology et al. v. USPTO, et al., No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In addition, the court determined that the plaintiffs had standing to maintain the action. This decision validates that the tools (DNA and isolated naturally occurring materials) underlying personalized medicine are still patent-eligible. Moreover, the court’s evaluation of the claimed methods are informative to those seeking to patent medical diagnostic tests because the court compared and contrasted a patent-ineligible claimed method to a patent eligible one.Continue reading this entry
Today, in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit held that non-naturally occurring DNA is patent eligible as well as the use of a transformed, non-naturally occurring cell for screening drug candidates. Myriad’s method claims directed to “comparing” or “analyzing” DNA sequences were held to be patent-ineligible. A copy of the Federal Circuit’s decision is attached Federal Circuit Myriad Decision. A detailed analysis by Foley & Lardner, LLP and this blog post will follow.
On July 20th, 2012, the parties in the Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 10-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(also known as the “ACLU gene patenting” case) argued (again) before the Federal Circuit. Recall, the U.S. Supreme Court had asked the court to reconsider its prior ruling as to the patent-eligibility of claims to isolated DNA, in light of its unanimous decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150 (S. Ct. 2012) (“Mayo”). In Mayo, the U.S. Supreme Court held that that certain diagnostic inventions cannot be patented under 35 USC Secion 101 because they effectively claim a law of nature.Continue reading this entry
The USPTO has just issued guidelines for its patent examining corps to assist them in determining whether a process claim is patent-eligible in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2012) (“Prometheus”) decision. A copy of the guidance document (“Guidance Document”) is attached. [2012_interim_guidance] The examiners are advised to follow the Guidance Document in examining process claims in which a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or naturally occurring relation or correlation (collectively referred to as a “natural principle” in the Guidance Document) is a limiting element or step. The revised procedure is effective as of its date of issuance, July 3, 2012.Continue reading this entry
June 15th, 2012 was the deadline for the parties and interested parties to file briefs in the controversial ACLU gene patenting case (see our post of March 26th, 2012), remanded to the Federal Circuit after the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012) (“Prometheus”) decision which held that certain claims to medical methods are not patent-eligible for failing to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101. On June 12th, Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) filed an amicus brief that urged the Federal Circuit to review the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Prometheus as it applies to multi-step process claims. Lilly’s amicus brief, filed in support of neither party, argued that new test is required to simplify the line between patent-eligible and ineligible subject matter, as [i]t is as best intellectually challenging to meaningfully apply the tripartite exclusions from patenting for laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas.” The issue of whether or not the DNA claims are patent-eligible, the most contentious issue in this proceeding, was not briefed by Lilly. Rather, in footnote 1 of the brief, Lilly stated that only the appealed process claim is addressed because Prometheus “appears to be irrelevant to the manifest patent-eligibility of man-made materials that are nowhere to be found as such in nature.”Continue reading this entry
The other day I had the opportunity to speak with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN TV on the subject of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. In the short interview, I explain the background of the case, offer my thoughts on why Prometheus’ patent wouldn’t have a detrimental impact on medical research and give my thoughts on what this means for the Myriad “gene patenting” case.