Posts Tagged ‘intellectual property’

Federal Circuit flips on Ultramercial v. WildTangent

Friday, November 14th, 2014

After two trips to the Supreme Court and two remands, the Federal Circuit considered Ultramercial v. WildTangent for the third time—this time with Alice in hand—and ruled that the district court properly dismissed Ultramercial’s suit as failing to state a claim, since its patent (U.S. Pat. No. 7,346,545) does not claim patentable subject matter.

As you almost certainly recall, the patent was directed to a “method for distribution of products over the Internet” whereby a consumer was given access to “a media product” if the consumer viewed an ad. While the claim contained 11 steps, the court boiled it down to “showing an advertisement before delivering free content” or “using advertisement as an exchange or currency.” Under step (1) of the Mayo analysis, this was found to be an abstract idea.

(more…)

C.I.T. v. Hughes Comm. – Survival Guide for Software?

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

On November 3, 2014, in Cal. Inst. Of Tech. v. Hughes Communications., 2014 U.S.. Dist. LEXIS 156763 (C.D. Cal. 2014), Judge Mariana Pfaelzer penned the most thorough defense of software claims attacked under s. 101 that I have seen since State Street Bank. The opinion is also useful since it both continuously cites – and often distinguishes or explains Mayo—and because it is very critical of the analytical framework employed by the same court in McRO (Planet Blue) v Namco, a September decision on which I posted earlier. (A copy of this decision can be found at the end of this post.)

The heart and soul of the opinion is the Judge’s dismissal of the “point-of-novelty” approach that she finds was used in McRO, as opposed to “purpose” test that she applies in this opinion:

(more…)

Genetic Technologies v. Bristol Myers – 101 At Work

Wednesday, November 5th, 2014

In the recent memorandum opinion, the court invalidated claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,612,179, owned by Genetic Technologies, Ltd., as “impermissibly [claiming] a natural phenomenon.” (Genetic Technologies, Ltd. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, C.A. No. 12-394-LPS (D. Delaware, Oct. 30, 2014), copy of which can be found at the end of this post).

If you have been following the Mayo/Myriad/Intema trail of tears, you could probably write 98% of this opinion “from memory.” A number of aspects of this very lengthy and predictable opinion stand out, however.

The claims were directed to a method of detection of at least one coding region allele of a multi-allelic genetic locus by amplifying genomic DNA via PCR, with a primer pair that spans a non-coding region sequence. The primer pair defines a DNA sequence which is in genetic linkage with the genetic locus and contains a sufficient number of non-coding region sequence nucleotides so that PCR produces an amplified DNA sequence characteristic of said allele; “and analyzing the amplified DNA sequence to detect the allele.” The claim was based on the discovery that there can be a correlation between variations in non-coding introns and coding region alleles; that is, that SNPs in non-coding DNA regions can also be in linkage disequilibrium with SNPs in coding regions of DNA . The genotypes of two SNPS in non-coding regions and two SNPs in a coding region are correlated so that the SNPs in the non-coding region can serve as “surrogate markers’ for the SNPs in the coding region.

(more…)

Canadian Hospital To Travel The Long And Winding Road Of “Gene Patenting”

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

Arguing that human DNA is a natural product, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) has filed suit in Federal Court to invalidate patents claiming human DNA or diagnostic methods that use it. It has been reported that CHEO was threatened by a U.S. company holding Canadian patents on genes associated with long QT syndrome, an inherited heart rhythm disorder. Currently, the hospital sends samples to the U.S. for testing, at a cost of about $4500, but says it can perform the test for about half that amount in Canada.

Of course, this suit was inspired by the Myriad decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that isolated human genes or fragments thereof are unpatentable as “natural products,” but that cDNA is a patent-eligible product of human ingenuity. The Federal Circuit has twice held that methods involving comparing a patient’s BRCA DNA sequences with a reference DNA sequence to identify mutations in the patient’s DNA sequence are patent-ineligible as “abstract ideas.” However, assay claims with more detail about the mutations or the manipulative steps involved were before either court on appeal. In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court held that a method for optimizing the dose of a known class of drugs by measuring the levels of a metabolite in the patient’s blood was patent-ineligible as an attempt to patent a “natural phenomenon.” It will be very interesting to see which, if any, of these tortuous legal trails the Canadian courts will follow.

You can find more information here and here.