In a follow-up to the Myriad Supreme Court Decision of June 13, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued what has become known as the “Myriad II” decision on December 17, 2014. The decision is available here. Myriad sought to enjoin Ambry from allegedly infringing six claims of three patents. The claims at issue in Myriad II were not previously considered by the Supreme Court in Myriad.
Primer Claims
The composition of matter claims at issue in Myriad II were directed to primers. For example, claim 16 of the ‘282 patent recites:
A pair of single-stranded DNA primers for determination of a nucleotide sequence of a BRCA1 gene by a polymerase chain reaction, the sequence of said primers being derived from human chromosome 17q, wherein the use of said primers in a polymerase chain reaction results in the synthesis of DNA having all or part of the sequence of the BRCA1 gene.
The Federal Circuit panel held that the claims at issue reciting primers were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. In an opinion drafted by Judge Dyk, the court held that primers necessarily contain the identical sequence of the BRCA strand opposite to the strand to which they are designed to bind. Therefore, the primers were structurally identical to a product of nature. Slip Op at 7.
The court compared the situation to that in In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the court held that the cloned sheep Dolly was not patent-eligible subject matter because it was identical to a sheep found in nature and did not possess “markedly different characteristics.” The court held that “[a] DNA structure with a function similar to that found in nature can only be patent eligible as a composition of matter if it has a unique structure, different from anything found in nature.” Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116–17 (citing Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309–10). The court held that primers do not have such a different structure and are patent ineligible. Slip Op. at 9.
Diagnostic Method Claims
The court also considered whether claims directed to diagnostic methods were patent-eligible. One of the claims at issue was directed to a method for screening the germline of a human subject for an alteration of a BRCA1 gene. The diagnostic method claims comprised steps comparing a germline BRCA1 sequence from a tissue sample with a wild-type BRCA1 sequence.
The court held that these claims, like the primer claims, were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The court’s rationale for invalidating the method claims was that they were directed to an abstract idea. Slip Op. at 13. The court relied on the two-part Alice test for abstract ideas:
(1) determine if the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept
(2) determine what other elements are there in the claim and whether they are enough to transform the claim into a patent-eligible application
Slip Op. at 14.
The court held that the Myriad II claims failed both steps of the Alice test. The court also expressed a concern that allowing such diagnostic method claims would preempt the field of research of breast cancer genes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, claims directed to primers that have a sequence identical to a sequence found in nature are not patent-eligible. However, claims directed to primers made from modified nucleotides, or that have a sequence that is not found in nature, are presumably patent-eligible since they have “markedly different characteristics” to the corresponding product of nature.
Furthermore, claims directed to diagnostic methods that recite “comparing” a germline sequence to a wild-type sequence are not patent-eligible. However, claims that also recite additional steps that narrow the claim enough so that it does not preempt an entire field are more likely to be held patent-eligible. It will also help to recite additional steps that are not seen as conventional and routine.
It remains to be seen how this decision will be interpreted by the USPTO in conjunction with the new Myriad Guidelines that were published on December 16, 2014, available here.
I will be moderating a stimulating AIPLA webinar on Myriad on Wed July 24, 2013. Our panel will consist of Gregory Castanias of Jones Day, Professor Joshua Sarnoff and Manny Vacchiano from Life Technologies. Gregory Castanias argued the case for Myriad before the Federal Circuit and also before the Supreme Court. Professor Joshua Sarnoff wrote an amicus brief on behalf of fifteen law professors in support of the petitioners. Manny Vacchiano will provide the in-house perspective.
I have been working with the AIPLA Women in IP Committee to organize their Networking Event on May 23rd. My firm Drinker Biddle will be hosting the event in Philadelphia.
At 8:30 pm EST everyone will join a conference call from their host city to talk to everyone else, throughout the country.
I have been working with the AIPLA Women in IP Committee to help organize their upcoming Free webinar which will take place on Tuesday November 13, 2012 from 3-4 pm EST.
As a proud owner of a first generation and a third generation iPad, I was curious as to what the iPad mini reviews would say before deciding whether I should go out and get one.
Here is a roundup of all the top info I could gather on the iPad mini from around the web:
with a 7.9 inches display, the iPad mini is larger than the Nexus or the Kindle Fire but is still small enough to be held in one hand
it has a A5 chip processor
it is 7.2 mm thick
it weighs only 0.68 pounds
it has access to 275,000 apps from the Appstore
it has a front-facing and a rear-facing camera
unfortunately, it does not have a Retina diplay–this may be one of its major drawbacks, according to some reviewers
other reviewers think that its 1024 x 768 display, which is like that of the iPad 2, is more than adequate for watching videos
it is pricy for a small tablet, coming in at $329 for the 16 GB wifi-only version
one reviewer recommends it for combined use with a MacBook Pro
for CNET’s first look video review, see below:
So, will I buy an iPad mini? I will probably wait until they come out with an iPad mini that has a retina display, because after using my third-generation iPad for months, I have become accustomed to the beautiful, clear display and am not sure how I would feel if I had to re-adjust to a lower resolution screen. How about you? Do you have one, or do you plan on getting one? Please comment below.
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is trying something new for its 2013 Mid-Winter Institute which will be held in Tampa, Florida on January 30-February 2, 2013. For a description of the program see the AIPLA 2013 Mid-Winter Institute flyer.
The focus of the meeting will be on why Intellectual Property is THE business asset of the 21st Century. IP attorneys and company executives will work side by side to present how they work together to face the challenges presented by today’s economy and protect IP in the global marketplace.
Here are some of the advantages of attending the meeting, alone or with a client:
attend the sessions and think through best practices and procedures to determine how to best maximize IP protection
learn directly from business executives and leaders why IP protection is so important to companies today
the conference will provide an intense primer on IP protection, including patent, copyright, trademark, as well as trade secret protection
this is a great opportunity to network with in-house or law firm attorneys and to learn from each other how to best maximize IP protection
learn how a working knowledge of IP has benefited business executives, CEOs and CTOs straight from the source
learn how IP matters to Angel and Venture investors
learn about global IP issues in biotechnology, chemistry, high-tech fields and other technical areas
learn how start-ups can best maximize the value of their IP and attract investors
If you want to receive more information from the AIPLA on the 2013 Mid-Winter Institute as it becomes available, click here. I am one of the organizers and will attend the Mid-Winter Institute. I look forward to seeing you there!
deboraplehn 