Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
about
Category: Patentable Subject Matter
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Earlier this month we asked for examples of instances where claims to isolated DNA interfered with basic research (see "The Proper Scope of DNA (or "Gene") Patent Claims"). We posited that the claim would be something like this one: An isolated (human) nucleic acid (or DNA molecule or gene (specified…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As we reported earlier today, the Federal Circuit, in a decision that substantially reiterates its prior opinion, determined in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that, the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo v. Prometheus notwithstanding, claims to isolated human DNA satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C.…
-
In a decision that substantially reiterates its prior opinion, the Federal Circuit decided today in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Myriad case) that, the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. notwithstanding, claims to isolated human DNA satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101: On…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One thing has become abundantly clear in the public debate about the patent-eligibility of isolated human DNA. That something is that there is a great deal of uninformed opinion extant, predominantly by well-educated people with scientific backgrounds, who believe wholeheartedly that patenting genes is pernicious because it has or will…
-
By Hal Wegner — The patent challengers in the Myriad case placed great stock in the argument that claims to "isolated DNA" (because of their alleged breadth) created a "research preemption." The argument is keyed to recent Supreme Court precedent such as Mayo v. Prometheus. In their certiorari petition a year ago in Myriad, the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Myriad case) on Friday, and the cast of characters remained mostly the same. On the panel were Judge Lourie, Judge Bryson, and Judge Moore. Representing Myriad was Gregory Castanias from Jones Day,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Appellant Myriad Genetics (the real "target" in interest of the ACLU/PubPat lawsuit over isolated human DNA molecules) filed its Supplemental Brief pursuant to Federal Circuit order in the remand of AMP v. USPTO. Not surprisingly, the brief urges the Court to reaffirm its judgment that claims to isolated DNA molecules…
-
By Andrew Williams — On April 30th, the Federal Circuit issued an Order in the Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office case vacating its July 29, 2011 opinion and reinstating the appeal. That Order was based on the Supreme Court's decision vacating the Federal Circuit's prior judgment and remanding the case…
-
By Andrew Williams — In addition to the various associations, academics, and interest groups that filed "supplemental" amici curiae briefs in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("the Myriad case"), two briefs were filed by companies that would be directly negatively impacted if either "the isolated DNA claims [or the] method claim…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Seven organizations of health care professionals argue in an amici brief filed in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("Myriad") that Myriad's isolated DNA and cDNA claims, as well as claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,747,282, are all invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The organizations,…
Patent Docs 