Please join us in a new webinar series directed to the practical strategies in a new era of patent law to protect IP in chemistry, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and genetic medicine.
The collision of new technologies and patent statutes of a by-gone era have led the Courts of the United States into new and uncharted territories. The Courts are wrestling to apply 1952 statutes to advances in computers, software, biotechnology and genetic medicine, and the fall-out has spread across all technologies. “New” judge-made law has been spawned from “old” established principles. Chemical patent law is no longer cut and dried. Biology has morphed into biotechnology with exciting medical/genetic advances that are denied patent protection by recent judge-made law. Even claims to polymer technology are not immune from the judges’ arm wrestling opinions.
In this complimentary webinar series, the Schwegman chem and bio legal team will provide practical tips to companies and universities looking for an understanding of this legal maze. We will explore and discuss current views of the law as applied to real situations, point out claim language that was acceptable in the past but now is not, and will suggest possible workarounds. We will apply the “new rules” to prosecution, opinion practice and defending and asserting patents in IPR. Each of the webinars are 30 minutes in length followed by a collaborative Q&A session with the presenter(s).
For the first webinar in this series, Drs. Robin Chadwick and Ricardo Moran will present on “Post Myriad: 5 Patent Prosecution Tips.” In this presentation, Robin and Ricardo will analyze how the Courts and the Patent Office have come down hard on claims directed to natural products and diagnostic methods and provide suggestions on how to optimize your chances of obtaining commercially valuable and defensible patent claims.
This live event will begin on August 24th at 1:00pm CT. To register, click HERE.
Please read my recent post about stage 1 of this proceeding, in which the Judge in 2016 found that the claims to diagnosing Myasthemia Gravis (MG) by adding MuSk to a patient sample and detecting any IgG autoantibody complexes that are formed, e.g., by exposing the binary complexes with a radiolabelled anti-IgG antibody (claims 2 -6). Claim 7 recited adding labelled MuSK to a sample and detecting any binary complexes that are formed.
Despite the recitation of novel compounds/complexes formed by the hand of man – the radiolabelled MuSK, the binary labelled MuSK-antibody complexes or the tertiary MuSK – aniti-MuSK – labelled anti-IgG antibody complexes, the Judge ruled that because the claims are “focused” on a law of nature – the ability of MuSK to bind to IgG autoantibodies – the claims fail step one of the Mayo/Alice test.
In The Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, the Fed. Cir. panel held that a claim to a diagnostic method for determining a test subject’s risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CD) by comparing MPO levels in the bodily fluid of a test subject to levels of MPO in control subjects is a patent-ineligible attempt to claim a law of nature:
“The method then employs the natural relationship between those MPO values and predetermined control values to predict a patient’s risk of developing or having CD. Thus, just like Ariosa, the method starts and ends with naturally phenomena with no meaningful non-routine steps in between–the presence of MPO in a bodily sample is correlated to its relationship to CD. The claims are therefore directed to a natural law.”
For more details, see my recent post on this decision. Continue reading
Before reading this post, please read my post of July 19, 2017 about Millennium Pharms. v. Sandoz, and you will “get” the title. Judges Lourie and Newman both dissented from refusal of the court to rehear the holding in Schering v. Geneva en banc. That panel decision held that inherent anticipation can be found when the missing claim element is, in fact, necessarily present when a prior art process is carried out, even if this fact was unknown to the POSA when the application was filed. Continue reading