Tag Archives: Alice

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, Inc. v. Mayo (D. Mass., August 4, 2017) – “That’s all,” She Wrote.

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Exergen Corp. v. Thermomedics, Inc. – How to Flunk s. 101

On June 22d, the Fed. Cir. issued a summarily affirmed the district courts Order that the method claims in suit did not pass the Alice/Mayo test for patentable subject matter. Claim 51 of U.S. patent no. 7787938 is representative: “A … Continue reading

Posted in Section 101 | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Happy Birthday to Us! We are 7 Years Old!

In fact, Patents4Life’s birthday was in late March of 2009, but the earliest posts were short papers I wrote for an IP newsletter that no longer exists. However, the s. 101 storm clouds were gathering even then. One article (in … Continue reading

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments