Tag Archives: Mayo

Athena’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc – Not All Diagnostic Claims are Equal Under s. 101

In my last post on s. 101, discussing “Cleveland Clinic II” I asked, “Why can’t a diagnostic conclusion be a practical application of a natural law?” and rhetorically answered: “Because the Federal Circuit says it can’t.” In Cleveland Clinic I … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Endo v. Teva – Correlation Diagnostic Plus Treatment is Patent Eligible under s. 101

In Endo v. Teva, Appeal 2017-1240 (Fed. Cir., March 19, 2019), a Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Stoll, Wallach and Clevenger unanimously found patent-eligible claims to a method of treating pain with oxymorphone, based on the inventor’s discovery that there … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Split Federal Circuit Panel Holds That Method of Medical Treatment Claims are Patent Eligible

In Natural Alternatives Int’l., Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1295 (Fed. Cir., March 15, 2019) a divided panel of the Fed. Cir. held that claims to methods of increasing the anaerobic working capacity in a human subject by … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hikma and West-Ward v. Vanda – Are Methods of Medical Treatment Patent-Eligible?

Hikma Pharms. and West-Ward Pharms petition for cert. to reverse the Fed. Cir.’s decision in Vanda v. West-Ward that methods of medical treatment are patentable. The Supreme Court’s now-infamous Mayo decision, invalidated claims to a method for determining the optimal … Continue reading

Posted in 2017 Patent Review | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment