AMP v. USPTO: The Latest Developments
Ryan Chirnomas, Partner in the Biotechnology group at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels and Adrian, sent in this article discussing the latest developments in the AMP v. USPTO case and what the Plaintiffs next move may be.
After the CAFC issued a decision in AMP v. USPTO on July 29, 2011, there was much speculation as to what would be the next move in this compelling case. A petition for an en banc rehearing or a petition to the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari seemed likely, but instead each party petitioned for a rehearing by the same three-judge panel. Last week, the CAFC denied both of these without providing any further comments. However, these petitions provide some insights as to how the parties’ positions on standing as well as the merits are evolving, and are summarized below.
Plaintiffs’ Petition for Panel Rehearing
On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and PubPat, filed a petition for a panel rehearing on both substantive issues and issues of standing. As to the substantive issues, the Plaintiffs took issue with the majority’s reasoning that isolated DNA does not occur in nature. (more…)
No Comments
09.21.11 | biotechnology patents, CAFC, posts | Stefanie Levine