In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) the Federal Circuit belittled pioneering work at Oxford University, indisputably one of the world’s leading research institutions. In the Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services decision handed down early in 2019, the Federal Circuit surpassed itself by belittling pioneering work representing the combined efforts of Oxford University and the Max-Plank Gesellschaft, two of the world’s leading research institutions. A petition for en banc review has been filed and is supported by amicus briefs. This article further supports the need for review, emphasizing inadequate attention paid to the positive eligibility provisions of 35 USC 101, conflict with Diamond v Diehr, an inadmissible extension of admissions within the patent description regarding a genus of techniques to cover a previously undisclosed species of techniques within the genus, and the need to give equal treatment to those who make pioneering inventions or discoveries and those whose inventions or discoveries are incremental.
Recent Posts
- Harrity & Harrity Seeks FT Patent Attorney / Agent in Electrical or Mechanical Technologies
- Understanding IP Matters: Celebrated MIT Engineer and Entrepreneur Develops Medical Devices to Treat Cancer and Other Diseases
- CAFC Finds IPR Petitioner Did Not Rely on AAPA as Basis for Obviousness Grounds in Affirming PTAB Invalidation
- Foreign Price Controls: A Risk to U.S. Medical Innovation and Patient Access
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 11: EGC Affirms Annulment of Rubik’s Cube Marks; Sysco Trade Secret Case Dismissal Affirmed by Fourth Circuit; and EU Advocate General Finds Member States Can Impose Measures to Protect News Content on Meta Platforms