Patent Law Practice Center

Monsanto Looking Good After SCOTUS Oral Argument

By: Gene Quinn (IPWatchdog.com)

Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the matter of Bowman v. Monsanto. For a recitation of the facts and procedural history, see Argument Summary. For purposes of this article suffice it to say that the case is about a farmer who did not want to buy Monsanto’s patented seed. He acquired seed from a grain elevator knowing that at least some would be Monsanto patented seed. He planted all the seed and applied Roundup® to kill everything but the Monsanto crop. He then harvested the progeny seeds for future use.

(more…)

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. Highlights include the anticipated revisions to the Patent Bar, a conflict of interest for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Breyer, and an update from the USPTO’s collaborations in improving the patent system via open access.

1. IP Watchdog: PTO Updates Patent Bar Exam to Test AIA & Appeal Rules – The Patent Bar will change to reflect the new rules incarnated by the America Invents Act. This post outlines what new topics will be tested and how the USPTO has established a trend in making sure the exam is as up to date as possible. The new Patent Bar exam will debut January 31, 2012. For information regarding PLI’s Patent Bar Review (Jan. 11-15, 2012), click here.

2. Peer To Patent: Improving Patent Systems through Open Access– The USPTO hosted its Second Annual Prior Art Collaboration Conference in October 2011, and this post provides the proceedings that developed during the conference. Participants such as WIPO, the European Patent Office, the U.K. Intellectual Property Office, IP Australia, the Japan Patent Office, and the Korea Intellectual Property Office discussed ways in which the patent offices and the public could work together to improve access to prior art. (more…)

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Prometheus V. Mayo (Again)

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether to set limits on when inventors can patent medical diagnostic tests.  Our friends at Foley & Lardner sent in this article discussing the history of the case, the issues being considered by the Court and the potential impact this case may have on intellectual property in the personalized medicine space.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted Mayo’s petition for certiorari in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 628 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010), a case addressing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of certain method claims relevant to personalized medicine. While the issue under consideration here does not relate to whether isolated genes and other alleged “products of nature” are patent-eligible, the Court in Prometheus will likely address whether and how one can claim methods that take advantage of correlations between an individual’s personal health/genetic make-up and possible health care options.

As discussed in postings on Foley’s Personalized Medicine Bulletin and PharmaPatents blogs, Mayo Collaborative Services filed a second petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court after the Federal Circuit upheld the claims (for a second time) on remand after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos (2010). Representative claims in Prometheus include: (more…)

Microsoft v. i4i – The Supreme Court Keeps the Clear and Convincing Standard

In the Microsoft Corp. v. i4i, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the burden of proof for parties alleging patent invalidity should be changed from a clear and convincing standard to a preponderance of the evidence standard.  Yesterday, the Court unanimously decided no!!  Garth M. Dahlen, Ph.D., Partner at Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP, sent in this article discussing  the decision and possible ramifications.

Yesterday in Microsoft v. i4i __ U.S. __ (2011)(Sotomayor, J.), opinion below, i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 589 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009)(Prost, J.), the Supreme Court gave a unanimous decision affirming the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §282 requiring clear and convincing evidence for an invalidity defense.

The statute at issue was 35 U.S.C. §282 which states:

A patent shall be presumed valid…. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity. (more…)

Stanford v. Roche and Ownership of Federally Funded Research: Navigating the Vagaries of Contract Law

Mary Hess Eliason, an Associate with Birch Stewart Kolasch and Birch, sent in this article discussing the recent Supreme Court decision of Stanford v. Roche .  The article highlights key points in both Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion and Justice Breyer’s dissent and questions whether this case presented the appropriate fact situation to address the issues at hand.

When an invention is conceived, it is generally presumed to be owned by the inventor under U.S. patent law.[1] The Supreme Court Opinion of Stanford v. Roche reinforces this maxim in the context of federally funded research.  The issue brought before the Supreme Court was, in the context of federally funded research, whether the ownership of the invention automatically arises with the federal contractor (i.e., Stanford) or with the inventor under the Bayh-Dole Act 35 U.S.C. §§ 200-212 and whether the inventor can interfere with any right of the federal contractor by assigning the invention to a third party.[2]

In their recent majority opinion, the Supreme Court decided that, based on contract law, an Inventor could assign an invention to a third party, even if the invention was federally funded under Bayh-Dole. (more…)