Patent Law Practice Center

The Patentability Black Hole

Inventors in the unpredictable arts often have to face an unpredictable paradox when patenting an invention.  There seems to be a disconnect between requirements for an inventor to disclose an invention versus the prior art to render an invention unpatentable. Fenwick & West refer to this as the “patentability black hole”.  In this article, Fenwick & West discuss this dilemma and how to solve this patent law paradox.

An inventor faces a number of significant hurdles and pitfalls in patenting his invention. Having a patent specification providing proper and sufficiently thorough disclosure of the invention being claimed by the patentee can, by itself, be a large hurdle, especially in the biosciences where experimental data is essential. Section 112, first paragraph, of Title 35 of the United States Code sets forth the disclosure requirements that all patentees must meet. This section is commonly interpreted as requiring that a patent specification contain a full written description showing that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the patent application was filed (the “written description” requirement) and that a patent specification enable a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to make and use the invention based on the specification (the “enablement” requirement). See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (2010). (more…)

Commissioner for Patents Robert Stoll Speaks at DLA Piper

Our friends at DLA Piper sent in this article discussing Commissioner for Patents Robert Stoll’s recent briefing on USPTO initiatives that took place  in DLA Piper’s  San Francisco Office.

At a recent lunch briefing in DLA Piper’s San Francisco office, Robert Stoll, Commissioner for Patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, addressed a group of IP lawyers regarding key initiatives to improve the USPTO’s efficiency and productivity.

Commissioner Stoll began by discussing the proposed America Invents Act, formerly the Patent Reform Act of 2011. A key provision, he explained, is a shift from the present “first-to-invent” regime to a “first-to-file” system which creates more certainty and helps all inventors, including the small inventor, while placing the USPTO in the same legal structure as other IP offices. He believes this change is an important step in creating global harmony in patent law, which he described as the least harmonized of the world’s intellectual property laws. Applicants will benefit from a streamlined application process when one standard is applied in all offices. This increases their global competitiveness and the strength of their patents. (more…)

Proper Business Method Patent Challenges Under the America Invents Act?

Patent Reform Update: Senate Eyes September Enactment For Patent Reform

Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing the status of the pending patent reform legislation.

Debt Ceiling Raised, Job Bills On Deck

With debt ceiling armageddon now averted in the 11th hour (depending upon your perspective), Congress has turned its attention to election season addressing the economy. As previously discussed, the patent reform legislation has long been touted as a “no cost economic stimulus” that will create jobs.

While there are differences with H.R. 1249 and S.23, most notably concerns over fee diversion, the Senate has indicated a willingness to accept the House bill.

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has identified patent reform as the first jobs bill to be taken up in the Fall term. To ensure quick enactment Senator Reid has indicated he will file cloture today (to remove the “hold”) so that the Senate can take up the bill immediately when the Senate convenes in September. (more…)

Foley & Lardner On The ACLU/Myriad Decision

The following discussion comes from Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff and Jacqueline D. Wright Bonilla of Foley & Lardner.

Federal Circuit Decides Highly Anticipated “ACLU/Myriad” Gene Patenting Case – Subject Matter Patent-Eligibility of Isolated DNA and Diagnostic Methods Addressed Head-On

On July 29, 2011, in one of the most controversial and publicized biotech patent cases in many years, the Federal Circuit decided the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patenting case, formally known as Assn. Mole. Path. et al. v. USPTO et al. In a majority opinion by Judge Lourie, the Court addressed the case on the merits, after finding standing. The Court held all “isolated DNA” claims at issue patent-eligible, but held as patent-ineligible diagnostic method claims that in effect recite only “comparing” or “analyzing” DNA sequences. While it is anticipated that this ruling may be the subject of en banc review before the Federal Circuit and/or will ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court, today’s decision and its impact will undoubtedly be of great interest to everyone working in the biotechnology and diagnostic medicine fields.

Background

After hearing oral arguments on April 4, 2011, Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Moore issued opinions relating to the appeal of the March 29, 2010 summary judgment decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sweet, J.) that invalidated the challenged claims in seven Myriad patents as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (See Foley’s April 4, 2011 Legal News Alert: The Federal Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Myriad Isolated DNA Case.) (more…)