On November 1, Meredith Addy of AddyHart P.C. and I submitted an Amici Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Freenome Holdings and New Cures for Cancers in support of the Petition for Certiorari in Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services. If the Supreme Court does not take this case, it is unlikely to reconsider its decisions on Section 101 of the U.S. patent law. This may be our last gasp judicial effort. The Supreme Court takes cases raising inconsistencies in the law or a circuit split. We knew parties/amici would focus on the Federal Circuit’s “internal circuit split,” so we took a different approach and urged the Court to resolve five critical inconsistencies in the law, summarized below.
The Athena Amici Weigh In: Knowles/Addy Brief Dissects Five Critical Inconsistencies in Eligibility Law
No Comments
Business
- Innovation Alliance Urges Biden Administration to Support Patent Rights
- Trade and Commerce in West Africa and How it Influences IP Rights
- Supreme Court Ponders Proper Application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- How Patents Helped Sprout the World’s First Plantable Pencil
- Patent Filings Roundup: Battle-Tested Off-Roading Patent Asserted; Jack Henry Battered Again
Recent Posts
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 22: Iancu and Peter Step Down from USPTO, CJEU Asked Whether Preliminary Injunction Standard Burdens Patent Owners, SCOTUS Denial Leaves Invalidation of Idenix Genus Patent Claims Untouched
- US Inventor Backs SCOTUS Petition to Clarify Claim Construction Principles
- Iancu Says Goodbye, Urges Commitment to ‘American Innovation Renaissance’
- Biden’s Opportunity to Protect American Innovation