Tag Archives: s. 101

Athena’s “Questionable” Petition for Cert.

On October 1st, Athena filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court following the Fed. Cir.’s fractured denial for its petition for rehearing en banc in Amgen v. Mayo. The original request for rehearing en banc … Continue reading

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

Senate Subcommittee on IP Feels our PAIN

In lengthy hearings conducted by the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property (of the Committee on the Judiciary) on June 4th and 5th (Parts I and II; Part III will be held on June 11th), the Subcommittee, chaired by Senators Tillis … Continue reading

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

Senate Committee Releases Outline for Section 101 Reform

On April 18th, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property released a “Draft Outline of Section 101 Reform” that is intended to provide the basis of legislative amendments to the requirements for patent reform. Apart from the proposal to effectively … Continue reading

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

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