New Edition of C.I.P.A. Guide to Patent Acts Published

This “Guide” is a 1528 page book published by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys via Thomson Reuters, and edited by Paul Cole and Richard Davis. Of course, it mostly focused on UK patent law, but draws upon a variety of sources, including decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, other EP contracting state and “even the USA.” This is the 9th Edition that is referred to by practitioners as the “Black Book.”

Continue reading

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Solicitor General’s Vanda Brief Deconstructs Mayo

When I was writing my post on INO Therapeutic’s Petition for Cert. on March 16th, I noticed the cite to the “invitation brief in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-817 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2019)(“the brief”). While this brief concluded that the Supreme Court should not grant cert. in this appeal because the Fed. Cir.’s decision was correct, it contains a rigorous analysis of the Mayo v Prometheus decision. Of course, the S. Ct. did not grant cert. in Vanda or in the later Athena case, which the brief argues might be worthy of review.  INO cited the brief as evidence that the Supreme Court’s “reconceptualization” of “traditional limitations on Section 101’s affirmative scope as free-standing atextual ‘exceptions’ has given rise to an array of difficult questions.” US Brief 8. This led me to take a second look at the brief.

Continue reading

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

Illumina v. Ariosa – The “Bucket” to Be In

Today, a divided Fed. Cir. panel reversed the district court’s decision invalidating the claim of two Illumina patents, U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,580,751 and 9,738,931, as directed to a natural phenomenon (Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1419 (Fed. Cir., March 17, 2020), Judges Lourie and Moore, with Lourie writing, Judge Reyna dissenting).

Continue reading

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

INO v. Praxair – Time for the Supreme Court to Step Up to the Plate?

Before you read this post, please back up and read my post of September 3, 2019 which discusses the Fed. Cir.’s ruling that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,794,742 are patent-ineligible as attempts to claim a natural phenomenon. The claims are directed to reducing the risk that inhalation of nitrous oxide (“NO”) by neonatal patients identified as having hypoxic respiratory failure, and who also have left ventricular dysfunction (“LVD”) will lead to pulmonary edema. The claims essentially recite dividing a group of such patients into two groups. The patients who do not have LVD are administered the standard dose of NO, while the at-risk patients are not treated with NO.

Continue reading

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