Category Archives: Patent Eligible Subject Matter

Athena’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc – Not All Diagnostic Claims are Equal Under s. 101

In my last post on s. 101, discussing “Cleveland Clinic II” I asked, “Why can’t a diagnostic conclusion be a practical application of a natural law?” and rhetorically answered: “Because the Federal Circuit says it can’t.” In Cleveland Clinic I … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cleveland Clinic II – Why Can’t a Diagnostic Conclusion be a Practical Application of a Natural Law?

Because the Federal Circuit says it can’t, that’s why!  In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the panel held patent-ineligible claims to a method of assessing a test subject’s risk of having … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Endo v. Teva – Correlation Diagnostic Plus Treatment is Patent Eligible under s. 101

In Endo v. Teva, Appeal 2017-1240 (Fed. Cir., March 19, 2019), a Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Stoll, Wallach and Clevenger unanimously found patent-eligible claims to a method of treating pain with oxymorphone, based on the inventor’s discovery that there … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Ren-Hie Xu – Are Cultured Mammalian Cells Natural Products?

The Examiner in Appeal no. 2017-003416 (Mar. 1, 2019) had rejected this claim as directed to a natural product: “18. An in vitro culture comprising a substantially pure, replenishable population of synchronous primate trophoblast cells, wherein the synchronous primate trophoblast … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment