Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
December 18, 2023
Recently Judge Connolly, Chief Judge of the District Court of Delaware had an opportunity of deciding three motions for summary judgment filed by CareDX in its litigation with Natera, Natera, Inc. v. CareDX, Inc, Dist. DE, CA 20-38, that one patent was invalid as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,597,724 (‘724), 10,655,180 (‘180), and 11,111,544 (‘544). The ‘724 and ‘180 patents are directed to methods of observing DNA in samples taken from patients. The ‘544 patent is directed to a method of “preparing a preparation of amplified DNA” from the sample of an individual to observe the DNA of a second individual in the sample. The Court found that one claim in each patent was representative of all claims in the respective patent. These representative claims are:<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
August 4, 2023
On July 28, 2023, Judge Williams of the Delaware District unsealed his decision on remand from the Federal Circuit addressing competing summary judgment motions regarding the patent eligibility of remanded claim 1. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine if claim 1 was directed to an abstract idea argued by Neapco on appeal for invalidity. Claim 1 provided:<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
July 5, 2023
Amgen provides a window on the Supreme Court approach to patent issues - look to history and established policy as our patent law is not code based but rather common law based. The Court noted that the “enablement requirement” is found essentially unchanged in every version of the patent law since 1790. While Amgen concerned the enablement provision, the same approach applies to patent eligibility, the “judicial exceptions,” which have existed in our case law since the early 19th century. In deciding Amgen the Supreme Court did not consider previous Federal Circuit decisions but looked to history of the enablement provision which involved Court decisions from the 19th and early 20th century. While Amgen was the Court’s first antibody case, it found analogous cases which provided guidance as to how the enablement requirement had been interpreted. Since U.S. patent law is based on common law, this is the appropriate approach to provide the needed predictability. Without understanding the policy behind the exceptions, one will continue to wander aimlessly from one case to the next.<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
May 30, 2023
On May 16, the Supreme Court distributed the CareDX cert petition for consideration at the June 1 conference since the Respondents waived filing a reply. The CareDX family of three patents, licensed from Stanford University, U.S.Ps. 8,703,652, 9,845,497 and 10,329,607, are directed to the noninvasive diagnosis of the state of a transplanted organ. The test provides the doctor with information on whether everything is okay, or that the organ is showing signs of being rejected. Both the district court and the Federal Circuit held the patent to be patent ineligible based primarily on admissions appearing in the specification of all three patents which are identical. Given the low success rate (recently zero) of requests for certiorari in the diagnostic/biomarker area, this raises the question as to the possibility the petition will be granted. The CareDx petition’s chances seem better than recent certiorari petitions. <... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
May 15, 2023
Today the Supreme Court denied cert in GSK v. Teva in which the Solicitor General filed a brief in support of granting cert. The Solicitor argued that the decision in GSK’s favor threatened the availability of lower cost generic drugs. <... Read more
Attorney:
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
February 22, 2023
CareDx is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patents 8,703,652, 9,845,497, and 10,329,607 entitled “Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Graft Rejection in Organ Transplant Patients” owned by Stanford. The patents describe diagnosing or predicting organ transplant status by using methods to detect a donor’s cell-free DNA (“cfDNA”). When an organ transplant is rejected, the recipient’s body, through its natural immune response, destroys the donor cells, thus releasing cfDNA from the donated organ’s dying cells into the blood. The increased levels of donor cfDNA, which occur naturally as the organ’s condition deteriorates, can be detected and used to diagnose the likelihood of an organ transplant rejection. Claim 1 of the ’652 patent reads (simplified):<... Read more
Attorney:
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
October 5, 2022
Integrated Technology Solutions, LLC (“ITS”) alleged that products manufactured and distributed by iRacing.com Motorsport Simulations, LLC ("iRacing") infringed on U.S. Patent 10,046,241. iRacing moved to dismiss, arguing that the ‘241 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C Section 101, as construed by Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and its progeny, because the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea and were patent-ineligible. The U.S. District Court, D. Massachusetts (“the Court”) found that the claims at issue were directed at patent-ineligible concepts, and that the elements of each claim did not transform the claim into patent-eligible application, and granted the motion to dismiss. <... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
July 25, 2022
On July 18 the Federal Circuit in Cardex, Inc. v. Eurofins Viracor, Inc., affirmed the district court decision finding that diagnostic method claims directed to detecting organ transplant rejections in U.S.P.s 8,703,652 (‘652), 9,845,497 (‘497), and 10,329,607 (‘607) were not patent eligible. The following claim from ‘652 is representative of the claims on appeal, emphasis in the decision:<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
July 5, 2022
On the last day of June to the dismay of many, the Supreme Court denied cert in yet another Federal Circuit patent eligibility decision, American Axle. Many had been hopeful of a grant because the Court had requested the Solicitor General’s view on the petition. In May the SG provided comments favoring granting cert. A dispassionate viewer would probably not have been surprised by the denial since it’s not apparent how any new decision by the Supreme Court could result in consistency from the Federal Circuit. As Judge Albright noted in deciding Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corporation, 6:20-cv-666ADA (WD TX December 27, 2021), he found it difficult to extract a unified theory of Alice’s two steps from the Federal Circuit’s § jurisprudence. The function of a circuit court is to take a Supreme Court decision and derive theory of how one is to apply it. While different circuit court’s may arrive at different conclusions as to how a decision is to be applied, it is rare for a circuit court to be unable to be consistent in its application of the law as announced by the Supreme Court. Yet this is the position of the Federal Circuit. A situation hardly conducive to “furthering the progress of the useful arts.”<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
June 22, 2022
On June 21, 2022, the Federal Circuit acting on a request for panel rehearing in the decision by the Federal Circuit in Novartis v. Accord Health Care, Inc., 21 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2022), affirming the district court’s decision of infringement and validity of the Novartis patent on Gilenya, U.S.P. 9,187,405, granted the request and proceeded to reverse the original decision and hold the asserted claim invalid for failing to comply with the written description of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).<... Read more