A consequence (predominantly negative) of the Supreme Court's recent foray into defining (however inadequately) the contours of patent-eligible subject matter is to give the district courts (and to a somewhat lesser extent,...more
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant certiorari in Sequenom v. Ariosa (and in some quarters, considerably before that), many have voiced the opinion that only Congress can resolve the acknowledged...more
The Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) pronounced, in no uncertain terms, preemption “drives” patent subject matter eligibility and its exceptions. But after Alice, it appeared preemption’s...more
Despite an understandable amount of gloom and doom in patenting circles regarding the effects of the recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit jurisprudence on life sciences patents (Mayo v. Prometheus; AMP v. Myriad Genetics;...more
On May 4th the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued its latest Guidance on how Examiners are to apply recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent related to subject matter eligibility (see "USPTO Issues Update...more
In its July 5, 2016 decision in Rapid Litigation Management Ltd and In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corp., the Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to an improved method of cryopreserving...more
Last week the United States Supreme Court denied Sequenom’s petition to review the Federal Circuit’s holding in Sequenom Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostic Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (2015) that claims directed to detecting fetal DNA in...more
“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” can be good words to live by, but in the context of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Sequenom, the silence is deafening–and could have a chilling impact...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (No. 15-1182), declining to review the Federal Circuit’s June 12, 2015, decision that certain methods of detecting paternally...more
On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, denied Sequenom’s petition for certiorari, leaving in place the Court’s previous rulings prohibiting the patenting of laws of nature and natural phenomenon. ...more
The Supreme Court issued an order this morning denying certiorari in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. Patent Docs will provide more analysis of the Court's denial of certiorari in a subsequent post....more
The United States Supreme Court is set to render its decision on the grant or denial of Sequenom, Inc.’s (“Sequenom’s”) petition for writ of certiorari that posed the issue: ..Whether a novel method is patent-eligible...more
In March, following the Federal Circuit's denial of Sequenom's petition for rehearing en banc, Sequenom filed a petition for certiorari for Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit's decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v....more
Earlier this month, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued updated guidance to its examining corps concerning subject matter eligibility rejections and responses under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The 2016 Guidance,...more
In response to Sequenom's March 21 petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit's decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (see "Sequenom Petitions for Certiorari"), a total of...more
UUnder the Patent Act, one can patent “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Common exceptions to what can be patented include laws of nature,...more