Posts Tagged: Mayo v. Prometheus


Alice Five Years Later: Hope Wanes as 101 Legislative Discussions Dominated by Big Tech

On June 19, it will be five years since the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), which significantly changed …
By Gene Quinn
21 days ago 36

Patent Eligibility of Medical Diagnostic Inventions: Where Are We Now, and Where Are We Headed?

In each of the recent Federal Circuit decisions on medical diagnostics inventions, Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 2017-2508, (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2019) (“Athena”) and Cleveland Clinic Found. …

Post-Myriad Legal and Policy Considerations for Patenting Genetic Inventions

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics changed the landscape of what is considered patentable material in the context …
By Karen Carroll & Sharad Bijanki
3 months ago 1

Why the Federal Circuit is to Blame for the 101 Crisis

When the Supreme Court believes that the Federal Circuit has made an error, they will reverse and remand with broad guidance, but often are not able to …
By Gene Quinn
3 months ago 30

Federal Circuit Affirms Athena’s Diagnostic Method Claims Are Patent Ineligible as Directed to a Law of Nature

The Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion affirming the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which held that Athena’s medical …

The Federal Circuit is Shirking Its Constitutional Duty to Provide Certainty for Critical Innovation

Here we go again! Another patent whose claims have been invalidated at the Federal Circuit—predictably, another medical diagnostic patent. Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative (Fed. Cir. …
By Gene Quinn
3 months ago 26

In CAFC Holding Finding Dice Games Abstract, Judge Mayer Delivers Concerning Concurrence

On December 28, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (2017-2465) in which the …
By John M. Rogitz
5 months ago 6

Boston Patent Law Association Announces Support for IPO-AIPLA Section 101 Legislative Fix

The Boston Patent Law Association (BPLA) has announced its support for a proposal for a legislative fix to 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing basic patentability in …
By Steve Brachmann
7 months ago 14

Smartflash Petitions Supreme Court to Challenge PTAB under Appointments Clause

In early August, patent owner Smartflash filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal a case stemming from covered …
By Steve Brachmann
8 months ago 8

The Death of Invention

George Santayana is attributed with the aphorism: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This is modern § 101 in a nutshell. Every horror we …

No Light at the End of the Tunnel, Not Even Close

It’s been over eight years since the Supreme Court issued its Bilski v Kappos decision, over six years since the Supreme Court issued its Mayo v. …

Legislation Introduced in House to Repeal the PTAB and the AIA

There are 13 sections to Massie’s bill, many of which are geared towards the abolition of various statutes of the AIA. Perhaps the most salient portion of …
By Steve Brachmann
10 months ago 24

USPTO issues guidance on patent eligibility of method of treatment claims in light of Vanda Pharmaceuticals

On June 7, 2018, the USPTO issued new guidance to its examining corps in the form of a memorandum discussing the Federal Circuit’s April 13, 2018 decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals …
By John M. Rogitz
11 months ago 3

Vanda v. West-Ward: This Time, Dosage Adjustment Claims are Patent Eligible Subject Matter

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, No. 2016-2707, addresses the complicated topic of patent eligibility in the pharmaceutical space. Much of …
By Stephanie Sivinski
1 year ago 18

The CAFC Split Non-precedential Decision in Exergen v. Kaz Raises Interesting Issues About Eligibility Determinations

In Exergen Corporation v. Kaz USA, No. 16-2315 (March 8, 2018), the Federal Circuit, in a split non-precedential opinion, affirmed a holding that Exergen’s claims directed to methods …