Category Archives: Section 101

Ex Parte Patterson: Assay Based on Two “Natural Phenomena” Does Not Equal One “Inventive Concept”

According to the “Mayo/Alice” rule, if a claim is directed to a “natural phenomena” such as the relationship between the a drug’s metabolite concentration following administration of an immunosuppressive drug and the therapeutic window of efficacy of the drug, the claim … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Appeals, Obviousness, Section 101 | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo – Finessing the Correlations Trap?

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Section 101, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Just When You Thought Things Couldn’t Get Worse Via The Application Of 101

On Friday, in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, Appeal no. 2016-1766 (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2017), a Fed. Cir. panels of Judges Lourie, Reyna and Wallach (Reyna writing) held that claims to a method of assessing a test … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Federal Court, Section 101 | 2 Comments

IPO, AIPLA and ABA IP Section Propose Legislative Fixes for Section 101

Between February and May of this year, IPO, AIPLA and the ABA IP Section have released proposals for amendments to 35 U.S.C. s. 101 to void the Mayo/Alice Rule and to clarify the definition of an “abstract idea” as it relates … Continue reading

Posted in Govt Policy/PTO Policy, Patent Reform Legislation, Section 101 | 6 Comments