Currently Browsing CPLRG™ by: Case Number
Browse By: Case Date | Case Name

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 10
  5. 11
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. 16
  11. 17

CPLRG™ 0073 - Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office - Jul. 29, 2011

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15649 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011) (LOURIE, MOORE, concurring in part; BRYSON, concurring in part and dissenting in part)  MyriadGenetics07292011.fc

Major issues:  claims to isolated genes; claims to comparing gene sequences to detect cancer; Bilski; patent eligible subject matter

In a much-watched case, known generally by the name of the patent owner, Myriad Genetics, a Federal Circuit panel addressed Section 101 issues concerning claims to isolated DNA and to methods of screening for cancer by DNA testing.  The panel also addressed the issue whether the plaintiffs, “an assortment of medical organizations, researchers, genetic counselors, and patients” had “standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act to challenge Myriad’s patents.”
.
On standing, the Federal Circuit held that “at least one plaintiff,” a doctor, had standing.  On the merits, the majority distinguished between claims to isolated genes and screening by cell growth rates and claims to methods of comparing DNA sequences.  The former but not the latter were for patent eligible subject matter.

Pertinent to this decision is the Supreme Courts June 20, 2011 grant of certiorari in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 628 F.3d 1347, CPLRG 0071 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which involves Section 101 issues on patent claims concerning medical diagnostics.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court reversed in the Prometheus case.  See CPLR 0079.    On March 26, 2012, the Supreme Court remanded the Myriad Genetics case.  Thereafter, on August 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit, in a divided panel decision, affirmed its prior approach.  Myriad2012.fc Thus, applying Mayo, the majority held that the “composition claims to `isolated” DNA molecules” did not “cover patent-ineligible products of nature under § 101 because each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter.”  It also held that the “method claim to screening potential cancer therapeutics via changes in cell growth rates of transformed cells” as not “directed to a patent-ineligible scientific principle.”  However, it held that the “method claims directed to `comparing’ or `analyzing’ DNA sequences are patent ineligible” because the “claims include no transformative steps and cover only patent-ineligible abstract, mental steps.”

Read CPLRG™ 0073

CPLRG™ 0074 - Cybersource Corp. v. Retailed Decisions, Inc - Aug. 16, 2011

Cybersource Corp. v. Retailed Decisions, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16871 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (DYK, Bryson & Prost). Cybersource08162011

Major issues: mental steps as unpatentable methods; Section 101; Bilski; claims to computer readable medium with executable programs instructions; Beauregard claims

A Federal Circuit panel, in an opinion by Judge Dyk, held that method claims to a credit card fraud prevention system, which could be carried out by a human mentally or with the aid of pencil, were unpatentably abstract in the Bilski sense.  The panel also held claims to “computer reaable medium” for carrying out the methods to be unpatentable.

Cross Reference. For a discussion of the “mental steps” doctrine, see Chisum on Patents Sec. 1.03[6]. Read CPLRG™ 0074

CPLRG™ 0075 - Patent Rights Protection Group, LLC v. Video Gaming Technologies, Inc. - May. 12, 2010

Patent Rights Protection Group, LLC v. Video Gaming Technologies, Inc., 603 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN, Rader & Archer) PatentRightsProtectionGroup05122010

Major Issues:  personal jurisdiction; trade show attendance; reasonableness of exercise of jurisdiction; suits against multiple accused infringers; jurisdictional discovery; 2011 Supreme Court decisions, J. McIntyre, Goodyear Read CPLRG™ 0075

CPLRG™ 0076 - America Invents Act No1 - Sep. 16, 2011

Introduction to AIA

On September 16, 2011, President Obama is scheduled to sign into law the “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act” (hereafter “the Act” or “AIA”).  The Act makes numerous changes to the governing United States patent statutes, which are codified in United States Code Title 35.

The Act is from a bill of the House of Representatives,  112th Cong., H. R. No. 1249.  AmericanInventsActHR1249

Pertinent to the interpretation of the Act is the House Report on the Bill, 112th Cong., H.R. Report 112-98.  HouseReportonAmericanInventsAct

Information on the legislation can be found at a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) website here.

A series of Chisum Patent Law Reference Guides will address specific changes, issues, and developments on the AIA.

CPLRG 076:  Introduction to AIA

CPLRG 077: What the Reform Act Does NOT Reform

CPLRG 0078: Section-by-Section Analysis

CPLRG™ 0077 - America Invents Act No. 2 - Sep. 16, 2011

What the Reform Act Does NOT Reform

Perhaps the first and most important feature of the 2011 patent “reform” legislation is what it does not reform.

The changes made by the AIA are significant and numerous, but they change little of the substantive law on patentability and infringement.

For example, essentially unaltered are:
(1) the standards of novelty and unobviousness in relation to the prior art (though the Act will, prospectively, alter the definition of prior art),
(2) the enablement and written description requirements,
(3) patent eligible subject matter,
(4) claim interpretation,
(5) the doctrine of equivalents and prosecution history estoppel,
(6) remedies for infringement, and
(7) direct and indirect infringement (active inducement and contributory infringement).

These important matters will continue to be defined by the constant flow of case law.

The switch to first-to-file priority is significant, but it goes into effect only for applications filed 18 months after enactment.  Many, many applications and patents will be governed by the “old” law.  Alas, many of us may expire before the first-to-invent principle does (fully).   Also, standards for proving invention (conception, reduction-to-practice, etc.) will continue to be relevant to determine issues such as co-inventorship and ownership.

Also, the grace period includes an inventor disclosure rule that will, arguably, allow an inventor to set a priority date by a “public disclosure” of the invention (up to a year before filing), which eliminates from the prior art a subsequent, pre-filing independent disclosure by another.  The Act does not define what constitutes a public disclosure for this purpose.

Never has so much attention been focused on a patent enactment that accomplished so little.

Currently Browsing CPLRG™ by: Case Number
Browse By: Case Date | Case Name

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 10
  5. 11
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. 16
  11. 17

©2010 Donald S. Chisum - All Rights Reserved

Website design by Bluegrass Internet Services