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

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. Read CPLRG™ 0073

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 628 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LOURIE, Rader & Bryson), on remand from 130 S. Ct. 3543 (2010), cert. granted, 180 L. Ed. 2d 844 (June 20, 2011). PrometheusLabMayo12172010.fc

MAJOR ISSUES: Section 101 patent eligible subject matter; Bilski; medical diagnostic claims

In 2009, before the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision on patent eligible subject matter and abstract ideas, see Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, CPLRG 0015 (2010), the Federal Circuit held that medical diagnostic claims were to patent eligible subject matter. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Bilski.  The Federal Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision.  On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court granted review, indicating the Supreme Court’s intent to address again issues on what constitutes patent eligible subject matter under Section 101, this time in regard to biomedical subject matter. Read CPLRG™ 0071

Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Newman & Plager) ResearchCorp12082010

In an early response to Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, CPLRG 0015 (2010), the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Rader, rebuffed a Section 101 challenge to claims in two patents to methods of “digital image halftoning.”  The court indicated a reluctance to find the kind of abstractness that the Supreme Court relied upon in Bilski to reject claims as ineligible subject matter under Section 101.  The court suggested that it would be more fruitful to apply specific standards of patentability, such as indefiniteness and lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. Section 112.

The struggle to make sense out of Bilski continued in subsequent Federal Circuit decisions.  See, e.g., Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 628 F.3d 1347, CPLRG 0071 (Fed. Cir. 2010), on remand from 130 S. Ct. 3543 (2010), cert. granted, 180 L. Ed. 2d 844 (June 20, 2011); Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, CPLRG 0073 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011); Cybersource Corp. v. Retailed Decisions, Inc., CPLRG 0074 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). Read CPLRG™ 0072