Tag Archives: Stem Cells

Yamanaka iPSC Patent Challenged

Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University shared the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Dr. John B. Gurdon for their respective discoveries that mature, specialized cells can be reprogrammed to become immature cells capable of developing into all tissues of the body. In the 2012 Nobel announcement, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinka Institutet stated … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Dismisses WARF Stem Cell Case – A Missed Opportunity

Recently in Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, No. 2013-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) dismissed Appellant Consumer Watchdog’s appeal on the ground that as a party, it lacked Article III standing. While the court’s decision raises interesting issues regarding litigation strategy, dismissal of the appeal … Continue reading this entry

Patent-Eligibility of Stem Cells Under New USPTO "Myriad-Mayo" Guidance

In March, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented new procedures to address whether inventions that relate in whole or in part to laws of nature and naturally occurring products are patent-eligibility in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, notably Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) … Continue reading this entry

U.S. Government and USPTO Urges Federal Circuit to Dismiss Stem Cell Appeal

On January 17, 2014, the United States government and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (collectively “the government”) responded to the Federal Circuit’s December 4, 2013 order inviting them to address whether Consumer Watchdog (“CW”) has Article III standing to pursue its appeal of the USPTO’s affirmation of the patentability of Wisconsin Alumni Research … Continue reading this entry

United States and PTO Invited to Stem Cell Party

Last week Consumer Watchdog (“CW”) and Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) squared off at the Federal Circuit over CW’s appeal of the  inter partes reexamination of WARF’s U.S. Patent No.  7,029,913 (the ’913 Patent, entitled “Primate Embryonic Stem Cells”). Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, No. 13-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  CW’s appeal challenges the patent-eligibility of in vitro cultured human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) … Continue reading this entry

Update on WARF Stem Cell Patent Challenge

As reported in my July 8, 2013 post, Consumer Watchdog (formerly known as The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights) and the Public Patent Foundation (collectively “CW”) asked the Federal Circuit to determine if in vitro cultured human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are patent-eligible. Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, No. 13-1377 (Fed. Cir. … Continue reading this entry

Clinical Progress in Regenerative Medicine

Two separate clinical initiatives were recently announced that support the therapeutic use of regenerative medicine. The first utilzing induced pluripotent stem cells and the second, a state-wide network in support of researchers, physicians and patients. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) possess the regenerative potential of embryonic stem cells without the associated ethical controversy. To date, … Continue reading this entry

Patent-Eligibility of hESC Challenged

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that isolated, naturally-occurring genes are not patent-eligible (see, Ass’n. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. __ (2013))(“Myriad”), Consumer Watchdog (“CW”, formerly known as The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a self-described public charity dedicated to provide a voice for taxpayers and consumers) has … Continue reading this entry

Monsanto Averts Declaratory Judgment Suit

On June 10, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Monsanto’s representation that it would not pursue farmers and seed sellers for patent infringement if they inadvertently use Monsanto’s patented genetically modified seeds and plants is sufficient to deny a coalition of farmers, seed sellers and agricultural organizations the juristictional basis to challenge Monsanto’s … Continue reading this entry

A Patent Landscape Analysis: iPSCs

There are several emerging technology clusters in the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) space. Simon Elliot and I conducted a patent landscape analysis focusing on issued U.S. patents and pending applications. We found several geographical clusters and a trend in the development of the technology away from the use of genetic transforming factors. A brief report on our analysis was recently … Continue reading this entry

Patent Exhaustion and Self-Replicating Technologies

Today in Bowman v. Monstanto Co., 569 U.S. __ (2013), a unanimous Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of patent exhaustion,the authorized sale of a patented article only gives the purchaser or any subsequent owner of the patented article the right to use or resell that article. It does not give the purchaser or any … Continue reading this entry

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review Federal Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

On October 10, 2012, two pro-life groups petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court’s decision allowing the continued federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells (“hESCs”). A copy of the petition for certiorari is attached here and our review of the history of the case … Continue reading this entry

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Case That May Impact Patented Stem Cell Technologies

On October 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion that eliminates the right to control or prohibit the use of an invention after an authorized sale in patented seeds sold for planting; and (2) creating an exception to … Continue reading this entry

District Court Weighs In (Again) on Stem Cell Funding Ban

On July 27, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Sherley v. Sebelius (Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1575) held that the National Institutes for Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research (“Guidelines”) are neither invalid for violating the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (“Dickey Amendment”) nor the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). In reaching this holding, … Continue reading this entry