Blog March 23, 2020
Claims Covering Basic Detection of Naturally-Occurring Compound, However Scientifically Significant, Not Patent Eligible
- Person title
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015) (REYNA, Linn (concurring), Wallach) (N.D. Cal.: Illston) (4 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit affirms summary judgment that patent claims are invalid under § 101.
The patent claimed various genetic testing methods involving paternally inherited cell-free fetal DNA occurring naturally in the blood of pregnant women. The claims included steps for "amplifying" the amount of cffDNA in a sample, and then detecting or testing for the presence of cffDNA. Some claims included further limitations addressing the method of detection, or the uses to which the detection results might be applied.
The claims are invalid as directed to natural phenomena. Under the first step of Mayo, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), the claimed methods are directed to a patent-ineligible concept because each method both "begins and ends with a natural phenomenon," i.e., they are directed to the detection of naturally-occurring cffDNA. Slip op. at 9. Under the second step of Mayo's framework, the claims contain no inventive concept sufficient to transform the naturally occurring phenomenon into a patent-eligible application. They "amount to a general instruction to doctors to apply routine, conventional techniques when seeking to detect cffDNA. Because the method steps were well-understood, conventional, and routine, the method of detecting paternally inherited cffDNA is not new and useful." Id. at 11.
It was irrelevant that the claimed methods did not preempt all uses of cell-free fetal DNA. "While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. . . . Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Id. at 14—15.
Moreover, it did not matter that the inventors were the first to detect cffDNA in such samples, and that prior art taught just throwing the cffDNA-containing blood away. First, to the extent the inventors discovered the presence of cffDNA in blood plasma or serum, that was not what was claimed. Second, the significance of an inventor's scientific contribution does not, without more, make claims patentable.
Concurrence: In Judge Linn's view, this result was compelled by unnecessarily broad language in Mayo dismissing all "post-solution steps" as irrelevant to patentability. Unlike this case, in which no one had tested paternally inherited cell-free fetal DNA before the inventors, in Mayo, doctors had already been testing the metabolites at issue there for years. Nevertheless, the Mayo language controlled here, which had the consequence of "excluding a meritorious invention from the patent protection it deserves and should have been entitled to retain." Concur. at 2.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog June 18, 2015
Ordered Method Claim Does Not Bar Partly-Simultaneous Performance of Steps
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.
Article December 27, 2022
Senior Principal John Dragseth Authors IPWatchdog Article "Top Federal Circuit Decisions of 2022 That No One Told You About"
Blog July 6, 2021
Federal Circuit Finds Digital Camera an Abstract Idea
Blog June 24, 2021
Legal Alert: What to Know about the Supreme Court's Arthrex Decision
Blog June 22, 2021
Legal Alert: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in U.S. v. Arthrex
Article January 4, 2021
Fish Attorneys Author Law360 Article, "Lessons For 2021 From Fed. Circ. Post-Grant Review Cases"
Q&A November 12, 2020
Q&A with Riqui Bonilla and Nitika Gupta Fiorella for Corporate Counsel Business Journal
Article September 1, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Biosimilar Development Article, "An Update On 2020 U.S. Biosimilars Regulation & Litigation"
Blog June 26, 2020
First Circuit Finds Device Patent Improperly Listed in the Orange Book
Blog May 12, 2020