Patent Law Practice Center

SCOTUS Ending Term with Patent Decisions

Over the past several days, the United States Supreme Court has issued several important decisions that will impact the patent system.

First, on June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which has sometimes been referred to as “ACLU v. Myriad” in recognition of the fact that it was the American Civil Liberties Union that was responsible for bringing the challenge in the district court and pursuing the matter through the judicial system.

In Myriad, Justice Thomas wrote for a nearly unanimous Court.  Only Justice Scalia wrote a brief separate opinion in which he concurred in part and concurred in the judgment.

The majority decision in Myriad is not long, and the first 10 pages are background. Despite not giving much detailed attention to the significant legal issues presented, the Supreme Court did manage to do real and serious harm to much of the biotechnology industry.

Justice Thomas summarized the Court’s decision by saying:

“[W]e hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.”

The decision has widely been reported as the Court recognizing that cDNA is patent eligible, but the ruling is far more nuanced. In fact, Justice Thomas specifically recognized that some cDNA is not patent eligible. He wrote:

“cDNA is not a ‘product of nature’ and is patent eligible under §101, except insofar as very short series of DNA may have no intervening introns to remove when creating cDNA. In that situation, a short strand of cDNA may be indistinguishable from natural DNA.”

I have spoken with a number of people who are in the biotech industry and they all seem to think this decision means that cDNA is patent eligible and I shouldn’t make too much out of Thomas specifically saying that at least some cDNA is not patent eligible. Personally, I think this is misplaced hope; we all know how the district courts will respond, and it won’t be to an expansive reading of patent eligibility. While the USPTO seems poised to say that cDNA is patent eligible, the fact that some has been determined not patent eligible will be used by challengers and likely successfully so. Further, it seems clear that Thomas is saying that if something is man-made but identical to what appears in nature, it is not patent eligible. This fundamentally undercuts the most important aspects of Chakrabarty and would effectively kill research into such important areas as artificially grown organs, which by their very nature must be identical to what is produced in nature to be transplanted into the human body, for example.

(more…)

Unanimous SCOTUS Sides with Monsanto on Seeds

On Monday, May 13, 2013, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that a farmer who buys Monsanto’s patented seeds cannot then propagate new seeds for future use without infringing the underlying patent.

The opening paragraph in the Court’s decision, which was delivered by Justice Kagan, succinctly captures the essence of the ruling. Justice Kagan wrote:

What is Prior Art?

Written by Gene Quinn (of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor)

Unfortunately there is no easy answer to the question of prior art, particularly for those who are new to the patent field. We can start off with the understanding that a particular reference or piece of knowledge will be considered to be prior art that must be overcome by a patent applicant if the patent examiner is legally allowed to use it against the applicant to reject one or more claims in a pending application. Likewise, a reference or piece of knowledge will be prior art if it can legally be used to invalidate one or more claims of an issued patent during litigation.

The trouble with explaining what prior art is stems from the fact that everyone already thinks they know what it is. Conceptually we do not want to issue patents for inventions that are not considered new, which seems fair enough. The trouble is defining what is “new.” For now, let’s just say that prior art must be a reference of some type (i.e., a patent or a printed publication) or some type of knowledge or event (i.e., public knowledge, public use or a sale of a product) that demonstrates that the invention in question is not new. (more…)

Federal Circuit: Foreign Application Not Priority in Interference When it Only “Envisions” Invention

Written by Gene Quinn (of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor)

Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Goeddel v. Sugano, which might be one of a dying breed should patent reform actually pass.  The case dealt with an appeal from an interference proceeding where the Board awarded priority based on a Japanese application.  The Federal Circuit, per Judge Newman, explained that it was inappropriate to say that the Japanese application demonstrated a constructive reduction to practice because the application merely would allow the skilled reader to “envision” the invention covered in the interference count.  If patent reform passes (and yes that could really happen) cases like Goeddel would become a thing of the past, although priority determinations like this one in Goeddel will certainly not go away.

Goeddel was a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in two related patent interference priority contests between the party Haruo Sugano, Masami Muramatsu, and Tadatsugu Taniguchi (together “Sugano”) and the party David V. Goeddel and Roberto Crea (together “Goeddel”).  The Board held that Sugano is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its initial Japanese application, and awarded Sugano priority as to the counts of both interferences. (more…)