<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Biotechnology Patent Law Blog &#124; Patents4Life by Warren Woessner &#187; Patentable Subject Matter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/category/patentable-subject-matter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patents4life.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.patents4life.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>AMP Petitions for Cert. and A Look Back</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/amp-petitions-for-cert-and-a-look-back/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/amp-petitions-for-cert-and-a-look-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:34:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Association of Molecular Pathology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRCA DNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chakrabarty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diagnostic methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SLW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Fed. Cir.’s opinion of July 29th, that isolated BRCA DNA sequences are patentable subject matter. Its brief (a copy available at the end of this post) contains little that is new in the way of argumentation, and relies heavily on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/amp-petitions-for-cert-and-a-look-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oral Argument in Mayo v. Prometheus – Why Mayo Will Lose</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/oral-argument-in-mayo-v-prometheus-%e2%80%93-why-mayo-will-lose/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/oral-argument-in-mayo-v-prometheus-%e2%80%93-why-mayo-will-lose/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1716</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 7th at 10:05 a.m., the Supreme Court heard oral arguments (transcript at end of this post) in the “Prometheus case,” presented by Stephen M. Shapiro of Meyer Brown (Mayo) and Richard P. Bess of Latham &#38; Watkins. Solicitor General Verrilli also argued.  In earlier posts on this appeal, e.g., on November 7th, I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/oral-argument-in-mayo-v-prometheus-%e2%80%93-why-mayo-will-lose/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prometheus’s Brief – Don’t Confuse Us With “LabCorp”</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/prometheus%e2%80%99s-brief-%e2%80%93-don%e2%80%99t-confuse-us-with-%e2%80%9clabcorp%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/prometheus%e2%80%99s-brief-%e2%80%93-don%e2%80%99t-confuse-us-with-%e2%80%9clabcorp%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LabCorp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It took me a while to get around to reading Prometheus’s brief to the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus Labs., No. 10-1150 (S. Ct. Oct. 31, 2011), because I was pretty sure how it would read and, in fact, there are no major surprises. Prometheus argues that their claims must be considered as a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/prometheus%e2%80%99s-brief-%e2%80%93-don%e2%80%99t-confuse-us-with-%e2%80%9clabcorp%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Excerpts From Amicus Briefs Supporting Prometheus</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/excerpts-from-amicus-briefs-supporting-prometheus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/excerpts-from-amicus-briefs-supporting-prometheus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amicus brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark corallo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mayo v Prometheus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This intriguing compilation &#8220;Excerpts From 15 AMICI Briefs Supporting Respondent Prometheus: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,&#8221; was sent to me by Mark Corallo of Corallo Media Strategies, Inc., Alexandria, VA. UNH Law used to be Franklin Pierce Law Center. Interestingly, SAP filed an amicus brief. Not surprisingly, so did Myriad. Key Excerpts &#8211; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/excerpts-from-amicus-briefs-supporting-prometheus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Part II &#8211; Mayo&#8217;s Brief Goes Back to A (Non-Precedential) Past</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/part-ii-mayos-brief-goes-back-to-a-non-precedental-past/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/part-ii-mayos-brief-goes-back-to-a-non-precedental-past/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mayo v Prometheus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my last post on Mayo v. Prometheus, I noted that Mayo is cutting a trail of (legal) tears to ultimately rely on the reasoning underlying the “LabCorp dissent” (548 U.S. 132, 136). In this dissent from a dismissal of cert. as improvidently granted, Justices Breyer, Souter and Stevens urged the Court to consider that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/part-ii-mayos-brief-goes-back-to-a-non-precedental-past/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mayo’s Brief Goes Back To A (Non-Precedential) Future</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/mayo%e2%80%99s-brief-goes-back-to-a-non-precedential-future/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/mayo%e2%80%99s-brief-goes-back-to-a-non-precedential-future/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You all may be suffering from Prometheus v. Mayo fatigue by now, but this remains the most important IP case before the Supreme Court, and may well alter the course of life sciences patenting for the foreseeable future. I know I am falling behind in posting on the appeal, but each party has now filed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/mayo%e2%80%99s-brief-goes-back-to-a-non-precedential-future/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DNA Patenting &#8220;Urban Legend&#8221; Debunked At AIPLA</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/dna-patenting-urban-legend-debunked-at-aipla/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/dna-patenting-urban-legend-debunked-at-aipla/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:16:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professor Christopher M. Holman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The  most interesting presentation at the Annual AIPLA Meeting – which is not yet over – was Professor Christopher M. Holman’s talk – “Deconstructing the myth that 20% of  the human genome is patented” which was based on his paper in IP Theory, Vol.2, 1 (2011). The “20%” number originated from a single paper, K [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/dna-patenting-urban-legend-debunked-at-aipla/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Myriad Petition For Rehearing Denied</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/myriad-petition-for-rehearing-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/myriad-petition-for-rehearing-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1392</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 13, 2011, the Fed. Cir. panel in AMP v. Myriad denied AMP’s (read ACLU’s) petition for rehearing by the panel. (A copy of the petition can be found at the end of this post.) In challenging the holding that the  claimed isolated DNA molecules are not products of nature, AMP argued that “the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/myriad-petition-for-rehearing-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Classen Immunotherapeutics v. Biogen Idec: Corrected Opinion Likely?</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/classen-immunotherapeutics-v-biogen-idec-corrected-opinion-likely/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/classen-immunotherapeutics-v-biogen-idec-corrected-opinion-likely/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biogen idec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claussen immunotherapeutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On August 31, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Fed. Cir. (Rader, Newman, Moore) revisited the court’s 2009 summary affirmance that the claims of three Classen patents were not directed to patentable subject matter. (A copy is at the end of this post.) This reconsideration was a result of a GVR from the Supreme Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/classen-immunotherapeutics-v-biogen-idec-corrected-opinion-likely/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/cybersource-corp-v-retail-decisions-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/cybersource-corp-v-retail-decisions-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cybersource corp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retail decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In recent posts, I have worried, then warned, the Fed. Cir. holding that the Myriad &#8220;analyzing&#8221; or &#8220;comparing&#8221; diagnostic claims were invalid as abstract ideas, would cloud the IP future of &#8220;modern&#8221; claims to personalized medicine (see posts of July 29 and 31, 2011 and Oct. 29, 2010). To refresh our collective memories, here is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/cybersource-corp-v-retail-decisions-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

