Tag Archives: Ariosa

Senate Subcommittee Hearing of Patent Eligibility Wrap Up – Now What?

Posted on June 13, 2019 by Warren Woessner

In my first post on the Subcommittee Hearings held last week, I noted the absence of many witnesses from the life science industry, as opposed to groups such as IPO, AIPLA, BIO, ACLU and PhMA. The third and final panel, … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged Ariosa, Chairman Tillus, David Spetzler, Gonzalo Merino, Laurie Hill, Peter O’Neill, Robert Deberadine, Sean George, Senator Coons, The State of Patent Eligibility | Leave a comment

Senate Subcommittee on IP Feels our PAIN

Posted on June 6, 2019 by Warren Woessner

In lengthy hearings conducted by the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property (of the Committee on the Judiciary) on June 4th and 5th (Parts I and II; Part III will be held on June 11th), the Subcommittee, chaired by Senators Tillis … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged Ariosa, Bilski, Chakrabarty, Federal Circuit, Hatch-Waxman, Myriad, s. 101, s. 112, Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property | Leave a comment

Athena III – Should the Discovery of a Naturally-Occurring Correlation Encompass Recognition of its Practical Utility?

Posted on May 7, 2019 by Warren Woessner

The origin of the idea that natural phenomena, like the law of gravity, cannot be patented, even by their discoverer, is well-settled law. In Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court stated, in dictum: “Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged Ariosa, Cleveland Clinic, Cybersource v. Retail Decisions, DNA, Federal Circuit, Funk Brothers, Genetic Technologies v. Merial, Gottschalk v. Benson, Judge Newman, Mayo/Alice, MuSK, Prometheus v. Mayo, Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Cleveland Clinic II – Why Can’t a Diagnostic Conclusion be a Practical Application of a Natural Law?

Posted on April 4, 2019 by Warren Woessner

Because the Federal Circuit says it can’t, that’s why! In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the panel held patent-ineligible claims to a method of assessing a test subject’s risk of having … Continue reading →