USPTO TRIPs over Myriad-Mayo guidance
Timothy W. Roberts, Chartered Patent Attorney; MA (Oxon); LL.D (honoris causa, Sheffield University) Paul G. Cole, Chartered Patent Attorney; MA (Oxon); LLM, NottinghamTrent; Visiting Professor,...
View ArticleFDA’s New Biosimilars Guidance
The following has been posted with the permission of their authors James E. Valentine and James C. Shehan of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara as part of their FDA Law Blog. *** August 09, 2014 FDA’s New...
View ArticleGenetic Technologies v. LabCorp. – Mayo Redux.
It was Mayo redux with a vengeance in the September 23, 2014 decision in Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Laboratory Corp. of Amer. Holdings et al., Civil Action No. 12-1736-LPS-CJB (D. Del. 2014)....
View ArticlePLANET BLUE v. NAMCO – Abstract at the “Point of Novelty”
In McRO, Inc. d.b.a. Planet Blue v. Namco Bandai Games America, civ. No. CV 12-10322-GW (FFMx) (C. D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2014), the granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that US Patent...
View Article“The Good Wife” Defends GMOs
Last Sunday’s episode of “The Good Wife” featured a Christian mediation between a farmer (Robert Joy) sued by a Pioneer-like company, represented by the actor Richard Thomas, for saving GMO corn seed...
View ArticleBIO Provides Supplemental Comments on PTO s.101 Guidelines
BIO recently generated a letter to the PTO on the March 6th Guidelines on the patent-eligibility of subject matter in the life sciences, particularly “natural products.” BIO invited a group of in-house...
View ArticleSection 101 at AIPLA
The increasingly intense conversation about patentable subject matter post-Mayo, Myriad and Alice got off to a slow start at the “Partnering for Patents” meeting held at the PTO on Wednesday. The...
View ArticleGenetic Technologies v. Bristol Myers – 101 At Work
In the recent memorandum opinion, the court invalidated claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,612,179, owned by Genetic Technologies, Ltd., as “impermissibly [claiming] a natural phenomenon.” (Genetic...
View ArticleC.I.T. v. Hughes Comm. – Survival Guide for Software?
On November 3, 2014, in Cal. Inst. Of Tech. v. Hughes Communications., 2014 U.S.. Dist. LEXIS 156763 (C.D. Cal. 2014), Judge Mariana Pfaelzer penned the most thorough defense of software claims...
View ArticleFederal Circuit flips on Ultramercial v. WildTangent
After two trips to the Supreme Court and two remands, the Federal Circuit considered Ultramercial v. WildTangent for the third time—this time with Alice in hand—and ruled that the district court...
View ArticleRevised 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Released...
On Monday, December 15th, the Patent Office released revised “Guidance” on the evaluation of subject matter patent-eligibility under s. 101. (A copy is available at the end of this post.) The...
View ArticleMayo Meet Alice Meet Myriad – Fed. Cir. Appreciates “Abstract Art”
On December 20th, a panel of the Fed. Cir. of Judges Dyk, Clevinger and Prost – Dyk writing – found that six claims in Myriad’s dwindling arsenal of BRACA1 and 2 patents were invalid as claiming...
View ArticleThe “Top Ten” IP Stories of 2014 (Most “Definitely”)
I don’t think I can recall a more action-packed year for intellectual property law in my career, much less during the almost six years that I have been writing this blog. I am trying to write this...
View ArticleMyriad Settles – Questions Remain
Yesterday, Myriad announced it has settled the BRCA assay litigations that had been ongoing—and not going well– with Pathway Genomics, Invitae and Gene by Gene (and I assume….Ambry and Labcorp)....
View Article“Precision Medicine” Initiative Leaves Patents “Lost in Space”
On January 30th, the White House released a press release expanding upon President Obama’s mention of “precision medicine” in his State of the Union Address. Not surprisingly, the details are pretty...
View ArticlePacing Technologies v. Garmin – D&D Explained
In this decision—No. 2014-1396 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 18, 2015)—the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment (a copy can be found at the end of this post) that Garmin’s exercise products do not infringe...
View ArticleEnzo Biochem V. Applera Corp. – When “Words Can Hurt You”
On March 16, 2015 (Appeal no. 2014-1321), the Fed. Cir. reversed the district court’s construction of a claim term relating to the scope of “A,” a moiety capable of direct or indirect signaling that is...
View Article“Isolated” Natural Products Still in Purgatory Post-PTO Guidance?
Recently, a new class of antibiotic, teixobactin, was discovered in the soil in a Boston researcher’s backyard via a high throughput in situ screening chip that detected individual bacteria capable of...
View ArticleFDA Finalizes Biosimilar Guidance
The Regulatory Affairs Professional Society (RAPS) has posted an informative article “After Three-Year Delay, FDA Finalizes Guidance Documents on Biosimilarity.” The article includes links to the...
View ArticleAllvoice Decision Provides Roadmap For Software-based Inventions
Guest post from Greg Stark, attorney at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. In a refreshing break from Alice/Mayo abstract idea based 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, the Federal Circuit released a decision...
View Article