Posts Tagged ‘ip’
Tuesday, January 20th, 2015
Although much more attention has been focused on the portion of this recent Fed. Cir. decision that held a defendant could “induce itself” into infringement under s. 271(1)(f), by sending one part of a kit to be assembled abroad, the s. 112, para. 1 portion of the decision deserves some attention. This is particularly true in the written description requirement (WDR) era the biotech industry has been living in since the Ariad decision enshrined the WDR as an effective claim killer. Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies, App. No 2013, -1029, -1376 (Fed. Cir., December 15, 2014) (a copy is available at the end of this post).
Trying to make a long decision short, Promega asserted patents claiming kits having primers that would co-amplify a set of at least three STR loci wherein the set of loci are selected from the sets of loci consisting of D3S1539, D19S253…etc. As you might imagine, Life Technologies, these claims were treated as closed, and Life Technologies easily avoided infringing them.
Monday, January 5th, 2015
The Chisum Patent Academy has three seats remaining in its March 5-6, 2015 Advanced Patent Law Seminar in Cincinnati, Ohio. The two-day roundtable seminar is limited to a total of ten participants to maximize opportunities for interactive discussion and debate. All sessions are led by treatise authors and educators Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller. Coverage focuses on recent significant patent decisions of the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Topics currently planned for discussion include:
- The Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. decision on patent-eligible subject matter and Federal Circuit decisions applying Alice Corp.;
- The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Commil USA concerning the intent requirement for inducing infringement;
- The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Kimble v. Marvel to review the propriety of post-patent expiration royalties;
- The Supreme Court’s pending decision in Teva v. Sandoz on standard of review for patent claim construction;
- The Federal Circuit’s grant of en banc review in SCA Hygiene to determine whether the Supreme Court’s Petrella decision changed the law of laches as a defense to patent infringement;
- “Patent Practice Gone Wrong”: Lessons from Patent Malpractice, Exceptional Case and Rule 11 Sanctions, and Inequitable Conduct Cases;
- Patent Claim Construction and Definiteness in the Wake of Nautilus (and Anticipating Teva); and
- Inter Partes Review: Two-Year Snapshot and Lessons from Case Studies.
No advance preparation is expected or required. The Supreme Court of Ohio Commission on Continuing Legal Education has approved the seminar for 12.0 hours CLE instruction.
For additional details on the venue, topics, and registration form, click here or e-mail email@example.com
Thursday, December 18th, 2014
On December 20th, a panel of the Fed. Cir. of Judges Dyk, Clevinger and Prost – Dyk writing – found that six claims in Myriad’s dwindling arsenal of BRACA1 and 2 patents were invalid as claiming non-statutory subject matter. (University of Utah Res. Foundation et al. v. Ambry Genetics Corp., Appeal No. 2014-1361, -1366 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 20, 2014)). (A copy of the decision is found at the end of this post.) The decision makes more sense than some commentators have given it credit for, but it still reads like the plot of the last Matrix installment.
First, the panel invalidated four composition of matter claims directed to ssDNA segments useful to amplify the BRACA genes or portions thereof, when used as PCR primers, or to identify specific areas of the genes if used as probes. These were claims in US Pat. Nos. 5,747,282 and 5,837,492.
Tuesday, December 16th, 2014
On Monday, December 15th, the Patent Office released revised “Guidance” on the evaluation of subject matter patent-eligibility under s. 101. (A copy is available at the end of this post.) The “Guidance” is an attempt to unify the analyses that were set forth in earlier Guidelines post-Mayo and post-Alice, and apply to all classes of inventions. After stripping away the introductory material, and the case law summaries, there are only a few pages of substantive guidance.
The most important change to the notorious March 4th “Life Sciences Guidelines” is summarized in the Flowchart on page 9 and in section 3B. If a composition is a “nature-based product,” it is analyzed in step 2B to see if it is “markedly different” from “its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state.” However, the revised Guidance pointedly drops the requirement that the product be structurally different. Now “markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function and/or other properties and will be evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis.” That is a big “or”:
The commentary presented herein represents the opinions of the author and not of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. or any other employee thereof. This commentary is provided for general informational and discussion purposes and should not be considered to be, or used as, legal advice to address any particular situation.
Minnesota Web Development Company - First Scribe