Attorney:
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
March 30, 2020
Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. Illumina, Inc. and Sequenom, Inc. ("Illumina") filed suit against Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. ("Roche") alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 9,580,751 and 9,738,931. Roche moved for summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Roche's motion holding that the claims of the '751 and '931 patents were directed to ineligible subject matter. Illumina appealed. The Federal Circuit ("the Court") reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
December 16, 2019
The Solicitor General (SG) was invited by the Supreme Court to provide comments on the certiorari petitions filed by Berkheimer and Hikma to review the Federal Circuit's 101 decisions adverse to them. The two briefs have numerous similarities including identifying the Court's decision in Bilski[1]as starting the patent eligibility confusion by not grounding its decision on interpreting the meaning of the 35 U..S.C. 101 terms "process, machine, manufacture, [and] composition of matter." The SG asserts that in Bilski the Court did not ground its decision on the stature terms but instead found three exceptions to be not required by the statutory text: laws of nature, physical phenomenon, and abstract ideas. While these concepts are found earlier Supreme Court decisions, Bilski represented the first time they were used independent of the statutory language or constitutional concept of the "useful arts." The SG then described Mayo[2] as continuing the Court's Bilski practice of not tying patent eligibility to any of the statutory or Constitutional language. Alice[3] characterized the Mayo decisional approach as a two step process.... Read more
Attorney:
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
November 6, 2019
FYF-JB, LLC sued Pet Factory, Inc. for infringing its U.S. Patent 9,681,643 ("the ‘643 patent") covering a tug toy for animals that emits a sound when it is pulled on both sides. Pet Factory moved to dismiss FYF-JB's complaint, arguing that the asserted claims were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("the Court") denied Pet Factory's motion to dismiss.... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
May 21, 2019
Often in writing applications there is a tendency to denigrate prior art techniques. This is not risk free as the patentee in Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2019) discovered.... Read more
Category: Patent Eligibility
Attorney:
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
April 29, 2019
Marijuana, for medical purposes and recreational purposes, is an area of great political, social and legal interest. By some accounts (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomaspellechia/2018/03/01/double-digit-billions-puts-north-america-in-the-worldwide-cannabis-market-lead/#6d925dd76510), the industry is rapidly growing leaps and bounds. Not surprisingly, patents and disputes centered on patents for this industry are increasing in numbers.... Read more
Attorney:
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
August 20, 2018
Last week the Federal Circuit denied West-Ward's petition for rehearing en banc. At the time of the original Federal Circuit decision (Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int'l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the case generated substantial commentary in regard to its patent eligibility context. West-Ward's petition focused on the question of whether "adjusting a dose of an old drug based on a patient's genetic risk of poorly metabolizing it" is patent eligible subject matter, so the pro-patent crowd will no doubt be pleased. There is another aspect of the case, however, which is worthy of consideration.... Read more
Attorney:
Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
June 11, 2018
New USPTO Director Andrei Iancu provided the Intellectual Property Track plenary lecture at the 2018 BIO International Convention last week. As has been a common theme since being sworn in to office in February, Director Iancu's focus was on changes to provide greater certainty and quality for applicants and patent owners. Yes, we have heard this before, but the time is ripe for real change that positively impacts applicants and patent owners.... Read more
Attorney:
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
June 4, 2018
In Ex Parte Bandic, the PTAB ("the Board") has given an insight into how the Office intends to examine patent eligibility under the two-step Alice test, considering the Memorandum published by the USPTO on April 19, 2018 explaining "Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility" in view of Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).... Read more
Attorney:
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
April 23, 2018
On April 20, 2018, the USPTO published (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-04-20/pdf/2018-08428.pdf) in the Federal Register a "Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element is Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter eligibility" that references a memorandum to the Examiner Corps the day before pertaining to examination procedure regarding Subject Matter Eligibility (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF). The public comment period ends on August 20, 2018.... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
April 16, 2018
On April 13 the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court decision in Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int'l. Ltd., appeal Nos. 2016-2707 and 2016-2708. The opinion addresses a number of concerns in ANDA litigation including whether jurisdiction exists under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) for a "late listed" Orange Book patent (it does), the availability of an injunction to prevent inducement of infringement by a label (it is available), and the patent eligibility of a claim to using a drug based upon the results of a diagnostic technique. It is this latter point which is of significant importance. Claim 1 of the patent (USP 8,586,610 (‘610)):... Read more