On November 25, 2013, Consumer Watchdog (“CW”) and Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) responded to the Federal Circuit’s Order directing each party to brief whether CW, as a third party requester, has standing to...more
In one of the first district court decisions applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s new Myriad patent-eligibility standard, the Northern District of California held that diagnostic claims containing only conventional and existing...more
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...more
In a July 12, 2013 letter to Dr. Francis S. Collins of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), Senator Patrick J. Leahy urged the NIH to exercise its march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act to directly license the genetic...more
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...more
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...more
On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., __ U.S. __ (2013), held that genes and DNA fragments merely isolated from nature without alteration are not patent-eligible....more
On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patenting case (formally, Association For Molecular Pathology. et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., Supreme Court No....more
Did the Federal Circuit incorrectly interpret and apply the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding patent-eligibility of medical methods as set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,...more
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....more
At 10:00 A.M. on April 15th, the U.S. Supreme Court will entertain oral arguments in the dispute now known as the human “gene patenting” case. The Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398...more
When should a patent application be filed? Should it be filed prior to submission of a manuscript or abstract for peer-review or just prior to publication? In highly competitive technologies, it is prudent to file as soon as...more
The patenting of human genes in Australia remains under court review. As reported in the blog Patentology, an appeal of the Australian decision, Cancer Voices et al. v. Myriad Genetics Inc. et al., was filed on March 4, 2013...more
In a companion case to the “gene patenting” dispute presently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Myriad Genetics, Inc. successfully defended the patent-eligibility of “gene patents” in Australia. In Cancer Voices et al. v. Myriad...more
Patenting diagnostic methods is more challenging in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Courts Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2012) (Prometheus) and the USPTO’s application of the...more
As reported in my November 30th, 2012 post, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the issue “are human genes patentable?”...more
On November 30th, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court will conference and consider whether to review the patent-eligibility of isolated DNA sequences. Our prior post of September 25, 2012 addressed Petitioners’ brief and request for...more
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...more
Patents protect proprietary information but are of limited duration. After expiration, the patented technology becomes part of the public domain. Trade secrets, in contrast, never expire and therefore are not accessible to...more