Let The Reformation Begin! Patent Reform Act Passes

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (H.R. 1249) passed the Senate on Thursday, 89-9, after more than six years of work – sometimes sporadic – by the various interested parties. Although President Obama hailed the bill as creating jobs by streamlining the PTO (my words) during his jobs speech to Congress that evening, it is hard to see how adding several layers of pre- and post-grant challenge/review to an already nearly stalled examination process will streamline anything. Eliminating interferences, never much of an impediment for anyone, is not going to solve the backlog issue and neither is charging $4000 plus for expedited examination.  I, and many other commentators, have criticized aspects of this bill (See Posts of July 15, 2011 and April 18, 2011), among them the odd, hybrid grace period and the 102(e)/103 consequences of reversing Hillmer. (See, J. Mueller, An Introduction to Patent Law (Aspen 2003) at pages 351-352, if you have forgotten this classic PTO-CCPA debate.)

But sitting on a late Friday afternoon with the 149 page Act in my lap, I just feel tired, and a bit sad. The elegant 35 U.S.C. is going to look a lot more like the tax code by the time it gets reprinted, and 37 C.F.R. may well be multi-volume, like the FDA regulations. After all those years of work, this Act seems unworthy of its sleek forebears – a pastiche of many special interests’ interests including a single law firm, that got a “special bill” passed. (See Sec. 37.) Am I the only one who feels that this bill is turning the patent laws into the tax code? There are 37 Sections with intriguing titles like “Tax strategies deemed within the prior art”, “Study on genetic testing” and “Patent Ombudsman Program for small business concerns” that I am sure will set our collective fingers flying across keyboards. This bill embodies legislative ADHD – open it randomly and put your finger down, and there is a law review article, or at least a note. (Harvard, did you know that your professors may be micro-entities?)  I have praised Director Kappos in the past as the hardest working man in IP-biz, but he is going to have to work faster than the Flash to churn out the regulations needed to implement just Section 12 (“Supplemental examination”). The Act passed without difficulty, but Senators as diverse as Boxer, Rand Paul and McCain all voted “No”. They may yet get to do the “I told you so” dance.

Posted in Patent Reform Legislation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Classen Immunotherapeutics v. Biogen Idec: Corrected Opinion Likely?

On August 31, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Fed. Cir. (Rader, Newman, Moore) revisited the court’s 2009 summary affirmance that the claims of three Classen patents were not directed to patentable subject matter. (A copy is at the end of this post.) This reconsideration was a result of a GVR from the Supreme Court in the wake of the Bilski decision (130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010); GVR, 130 S. Ct. 3541 (2010)). The Bilski decision rejected the M or T test as the sole test by which to evaluate the patent-eligibility of a process, and the Fed. Cir. had based its earlier affirmance of the district court’s ruling on the failure of the claimed processes to accomplish a transformation (304 F. App’x 866 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In March 2009, one of the first posts on this blog was a note I co-authored, criticizing the court for not recognizing that the recited immunization steps accomplish the biotransformation of an animal from a nonimmune state to an immune state. On December 17, 2010, I posted a note on the court’s affirmance of its earlier decision in Prometheus v. Mayo, that the disputed method claims were directed to patentable subject matter, and I suggested that the original Classen decision should be “fixed.” Judges Rader and Newman agreed that 2/3 patents in suit—the ‘739 and the ‘139 patent—claimed patentable subject matter, while a third patent, U.S. Pat. No. 5,723,283 fell into the “abstract ideas” exception to s. 101.

Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Obviousness Objections Based On Combinations Of References – Consistent Warnings From The CAFC

By Paul Cole, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University; Lucas & Co, Warlingham, UK

Those prosecuting patent applications before the USPTO, the EPO and other examining patent offices confront on a daily basis objections of the kind: “A is known from X, B is known from Y; there was no invention in combining A with B.” Such objections are time-consuming to counter and often seem to a prosecuting attorney and his or her client less than reasonable. A sequence of recent decisions from the CAFC provides a clear indication that objections of this kind are being made too freely and too often.

In re Arnold G. Klein decided 6th June 2011 was a unanimous opinion of Judges Newman, Schall and Linn. It concerned a jug for mixing nectar having two compartments separated by a movable divider. Sugar (presumably in granular form) could be placed in one compartment and water in the other, after which the divider could be removed and a correct mixture for hummingbirds and other specific creatures that it was intended to feed could be obtained. The USPTO Appeal Board held that the claimed subject matter lacked inventive step having regard inter alia to various primary references disclosing office drawers with movable partitions using as secondary reference admitted knowledge in the prior art of the appropriate sugar to water ratios for the creatures that it was intended to feed. The CAFC unequivocally rejected the cited primary references as analogous art on the ground that they were neither within the field of endeavour of the invention nor reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the invention was involved. In a footnote the Court rejected the proposition that the problem with which the inventor was concerned could be arbitrarily redefined to support an obviousness rejection and went on to comment that:

Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.

 

In recent posts, I have worried, then warned, the Fed. Cir. holding that the Myriad “analyzing” or “comparing” diagnostic claims were invalid as abstract ideas, would cloud the IP future of “modern” claims to personalized medicine (see posts of July 29 and 31, 2011 and Oct. 29, 2010). To refresh our collective memories, here is a shortened version of one of the Myriad method claims:

1. A method for screening a tumor sample from a human subject for a somatic alteration in a BRCA1 gene in said tumor which comprises comparing a first sequence…[of] a BRCA1 gene from said tumor sample…with a second sequence …[of] a BRCA1 gene from a nontumor sample of said subject, wherein a difference in the sequence of the BRCA1 gene…indicates a somatic alteration in the BRCA1 gene in said tumor sample.

[US Pat. No. 5,710,001].

Continue reading

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