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.
- Petition Seeks Rare En Banc Review to Clarify Whether PTAB Can Overrule Article III Courts
- Other Barks & Bites, Friday, October 18: USPTO Updates Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, China Receives Half of 2018 Global Patent Filings, US Inventor to Host Rally
- Professors Brief Capitol Hill Staffers on Proposal to Weed Out ‘Bad Patents’
- PTAB Invalidates Nasdaq Patent Claims on Automated Securities Trading in Series of CBMs
- How Foreign Patent Infringers Are Subject to Jurisdiction in the United States