Posts Tagged ‘Myriad’

Myriad Guidance Comments

Thursday, July 10th, 2014

The USPTO is now publishing comments



Friday, June 27th, 2014

The deadline for Myriad-Mayo comments has been extended by a month.

Info on the USPTO website and can be found here.


Natural Products Eligibility Guidance – Post-Forum Comments

Tuesday, June 17th, 2014

Guest Post from Paul Cole, Lucas & Co., UK

Readers of this and other blogs will have been aware of comments of mine in relation to the USPTO natural product eligibility guidance.

Available here is the final version of the post-forum comments that I submitted  to USPTO on 15 June.

On substantive law, the comments take the position that the ruling in Myriad is concerned with reasons rather than structural differences and that the qualification for eligibility should continue to be a difference plus new utility.

A number of suggested replacement or additional examples have been included. Where appropriate, these have been created using real world examples such as cephalosporin plasmids and rapamycin based on real expired patents rather than notional examples such as Amazonic acid. It is believed that real world examples are more fairly representative of past and current research.

The end of the term for comments at the end of June is rapidly approaching. Those wish to summit comments on the guidance should do so using the myriad-mayo comment address .


USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – 9th May Forum – Outcome and Opportunities

Friday, May 16th, 2014

Guest Post from Paul Cole, Lucas & Co., UK

As noted in postings in this and other blogs, controversy has been generated by the publication of new USPTO patent eligibility guidance for laws of nature, natural products and natural phenomena (Andrew Hirshfeld, 4th March). A forum hosted by the Office on 9th May provided an opportunity for feedback from organizations and individuals. Some 80 people attended in person and some 350 people watched via webcast. A replay is available via the USPTO’s webpage ( and slides from the presentations by the USPTO and by 9 of the 10 invited speakers are also available.

Perhaps the most important take-away message was that although the Office is unwilling to withdraw the guidance or to depart from the basic principles contained in it, it is recognised that development must be an iterative process. Until the end of June the public still has the opportunity to submit comments, suggest alternative interpretations and submit additional training examples. Andrew Hirshfeld went out of his way to say that he would love to see additional examples.