Public Policy Considerations and Patent Eligible Subject Matter Relating to Diagnostic Inventions Disclaimer: Any views expressed here are offered in order.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PATENTS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY presented to the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Buenaventura Chapter Nicole Ballew Chang, PhD Lauren E. Schneider, Esq.
Advertisements

1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Obviousness-Type Double Patenting The Pitfalls Heather Champion Brady IP Practice.
Update on USPTO Activities November 18, 2014 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy 1.
Recent Cases on Patentable Subject Matter and Patent Exhaustion Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A. Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes.
Orlando, Florida | Mayo v. Prometheus by:Jon M. Gibbs Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed PA.
Diagnostics: Patent Eligibility and the Industry Perspective
1.  35 U.S.C. § 101: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful.
© 2011 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C. All Rights Reserved. Patenting Biomarkers and Diagnostic Methods Neil P. Shull, Ph.D., J.D. S TERNE,
What is Happening to Patent Eligibility and What Can We Do About It? June 24, 2014 Bruce D. Sunstein Denise M. Kettelberger, Ph.D. Sunstein Kann Murphy.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN BIOTECH PATENTS Carine van den Brink 18 April 2012.
1 1 AIPLA 1 1 American Intellectual Property Law Association Patentable Subject Matter in the US AIPPI-Symposium Zeist 13 March 2013 Raymond E. Farrell.
1 Bioinformatics Practice Considerations October 20, 2011 Ling Zhong, Ph.D.
© 2011 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment in the United States AIPPI 2011 Forum/ExCo Peter.
PATENTABLE SUBJECTS IN THE INTERNET OF THINGS ALICIA SHAH.
11 Post-Bilski Case Law Update Remy Yucel Director, Central Reexamination Unit.
More on Section 101 Patent Law Prof. Merges
Bilski: Will It Affect Bioscience Method Claims? Mark T. Skoog, Ph.D. Merchant & Gould MIPLA Biotech/Chemical Law Committee November 2009.
Intellectual Property March 4, 2015 Don Keach Director, Intellectual Property Development and Technology Transfer Office Copyright University of Kentucky.
In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter December 2, 2008 John King Ron Schoenbaum.
IP 101 for LA BioMed Michael J. Shuster, Ph.D., J.D. October 9, 2013.
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Safekeeping of 35 U.S.C. 156 Extensions
Divided Infringement Patent Law News Flash!
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
2015 AIPLA IP Practice in Europe Committee June, 2015 Phil Swain Foley Hoag LLP Boston, MA - USA The Effect of Alice v CLS Bank on patent subject matter.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Myriad Guidance for Biotechnology and Chemical Practice Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin and.
Examiner Guidelines After Alice Corp. August 21, 2014 How Much “More” is “Significantly More”?
Patentable Subject Matter and Design Patents,Trademarks, and Copyrights David L. Hecht, J.D., M.B.A, B.S.E.E.
EPIP 2 Research Tools in Genetics Sandy Thomas Nuffield Council on Bioethics November 2003.
Writs of certiori (writs of cert) Describe the process of granting a writ of cert by the Supreme Court. Why does this process exist?
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
35 USC 101 Update Business Methods Partnership Meeting, Spring 2008 by Robert Weinhardt Business Practice Specialist, Technology Center 3600
Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership: Recent Examiner Training and Developments Under 35 USC § 101 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner.
Biotechnology Chemistry Pharmaceutical Partnership Meeting September 8, 2010 D. Benjamin Borson, M.A., J.D., Ph.D. Borson Law Group, PC Copyright, Borson.
AIPLA Biotech Committee Annual Meeting 2011 Practice Strategies In View of Recent Case Law Developments Panel – James Kelley, Eli Lilly and Company – Ling.
Patent Eligible Subject Matter: Where Are We Now? A Presentation to CPTCLA September 23, 2011 Mike Connor Alston & Bird LLP Atlanta | Brussels | Charlotte.
Impact of Myriad Decisions on Patent Eligibility of Biotechnology Inventions in Australia and the US.
© 2011 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
Prosecution Group Luncheon November, Prioritized Examination—37 CFR “No fault” special status under 1.102(e) Request made with filing of nonprovisional.
Post-Prometheus Interim Examination Guidelines Daphne Lainson Smart & Biggar AIPLA 1.
Post-Bilski Patent Prosecution IP Osgoode March 13, 2009 Bob Nakano McCarthy Tétrault LLP.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Politics, Health Care, Subject Matter Eligibility, & Patent Preemption Mercedes K. Meyer,
Safe Harbor or Not: Application of 271(e)(1) to Pioneering Drug Discovery Activities Susan Steele October 21, 2003.
Due Diligence Strategy for In-house Counsel Jen Sieczkiewicz, Ph.D., J.D. Research & Business Development Counsel.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on US Caselaw, including Myriad and Hamilton Beach Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin and.
The Myriad Genetics Case Gregory A. (Greg) Castanias Jones Day—Washington, DC September 22,
AMP v. US PTO: Section 101 and DNA Sequence Patents Joshua D. Sarnoff DePaul U. College of Law 25 E. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL,
1 Demystifying the Examination of Stem Cell-Related Inventions Remy Yucel, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 United States Patent.
The Subject Matter of Patents II Class Notes: April 8, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association More Fun with §101 – A Prosecution Perspective for Biotechnology Derived Innovation.
1. 35 USC § 101: Statutory Requirements and Four Categories of Invention August 2015 Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY ARDIN MARSCHEL SPE AU 1631 (571)
Mayo v. Prometheus Labs – The Backdrop June 12, 2012 © 2012, all rights reserved.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
Myriad The Future of DNA Claims Mercedes Meyer, Ph.D., JD AIPLA 1.
What is Patentable Subject Matter? Dan L. Burk Chancellor’s Professor of Law University of California, Irvine.
The Federal Courts. I. Jurisdiction A. Trivia Question: How many court systems exist in the US today?
Introduction The Patentability of Human Genes Is patenting human genes moral? Should it be legal? Should there be international intervention?
Intro to the Appellate Process When a party loses at trial they have the right to appeal the decision. An appeal is always about whether the law was correctly.
Korean Intellectual Property Office October 19, 2011 Sunhee Lee, SUGHRUE MION PLLC RECENT CASES IN BIOTECH/PHARM/CHEM & 2011 AMERICA INVENTS ACT.
Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law 1.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP AIPLA BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE WEBINAR Leslie McDonell The contents of.
Restoring the Patent System: Countering Supreme Court Attacks on What Can be Patented David Kappos Robert Armitage Bruce Sunstein Denise Kettelberger,
The Challenge of Biotech Patent Eligibility in the United States:
Alexandria, Virginia July 21, 2014
ChIPs Global Summit, September 15, 2016
Cooper & Dunham LLP Established 1887
Subject Matter Eligibility
What Is Patentable Subject Matter. Changing Perspectives in the
Gene Patenting Connecticut Invention Convention
Presentation transcript:

Public Policy Considerations and Patent Eligible Subject Matter Relating to Diagnostic Inventions Disclaimer: Any views expressed here are offered in order to advance the cause of thinking about the issues presented by recent events in the biotechnology area and do not necessarily represent the view of any individual presenter, corporation, law firm, or clients of law firms presenting today. Claims are summarized for illustration purposes only and do not encompass all claim limitations or interpretations thereof. No practice considerations presented here constitute legal advice and adoption of any part of the practice considerations remains the sole responsibility of the practicing attorney. 1

My Topics Today Public Opinion Impact on Diagnostic Patents Government Response to Public Opinion Diagnostic Methods and Gene Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Patent Eligibility Practice Considerations 2

Public Opinion Concerns: Why Now?  Access to Tests  Sole Provider Model  Pricing / Reimbursement  Personalized Medicine  Predictive, Preemptive, Early Detection  Multivariate Index Assays / Multiplexing  Whole Genome Sequencing  Limited Experimental Use Exemption 3

Public Policy: ACLU Involvement Don’t Patent “My” Genes Products of Nature from the Human Body Prevents Scientific Research No Experimental Research Exemption Impedes Practice of Medicine Impedes Free Exchange of Information Lack of Alternative Testing for 2 nd Opinion Lack of Reimbursement for Follow-Up Test Costs of Tests 4

Government Reaction Legislative: Leahy-Smith ‘America Invents’ Act: – Section 27 Study on Genetic Testing Executive: Brief of Amicus Curiae in Myriad Judicial: Supreme Court Opens Door to §101 Regulatory Pathway of Diagnostic Tests – Multiple Guidance Reports – Approval Process: PMA vs. 510(K) – Designations of RUO; IUO; and LDT 5

Supreme Court: Section 101 Section 101: Patent Eligible Subject Matter – Judicially Created Exceptions: Laws of Nature, Physical Phenomena, Abstract Ideas, Products of Nature Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. 548 U.S. 124(2006) Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct (2010) Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Cert. Granted 6/20/2011; Hearing date scheduled for 12/7/2011 6

Review of Bilski Removed “machine or transformation test” as sole test for determining patent eligibility of a process under 35 U.S.C. § 101 “Advanced Medical Techniques” are Processes Grant, Vacate, Remand to Federal Circuit – Prometheus (Method of Diagnosis) – Classen (Method of Treatment) 7

Mayo v. Prometheus 628 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. granted, 79 USLW 3554 (June 20, 2011) PENDING SUPREME CT. Supreme Court Oral Arguments 12/7/2011 Methods of Optimizing Therapeutic Efficacy and Reducing Toxicity – Drug Known at the Time of Patent Filing – Problem with Efficacy and Toxicity of Drug – U.S. Pat. Nos.: 6,355,623; 6,680,302 8

Mayo v. Prometheus (Cont.) Method of Testing: 2 Claim Formats – Steps of a) administering drug and b) determining the level of a metabolite of drug and correlating to toxicity or efficacy – Step of a) determining the level of a metabolite of drug and correlating … Federal Circuit: Held Both Types Patent Eligible Supreme Court: Are “transformations” of body chemistry sufficient for eligibility under §101. 9

Classen v. Biogen Idec Slip Op (Fed. Cir. 2011) FEDERAL CIRCUIT Method of immunizing: 2 Claim Formats -Key steps of a) screening immunization schedules and b) immunizing subject according to schedule U.S. Pat. 6,420,139; 6,638,739 Eligible: Physical Steps -Method of determining whether immunization schedule affects incidence/severity of disorder U.S. Pat. No. 5,723,283 Ineligible: Abstract principle 10

Ass. M. Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Slip. Op (Fed. Cir. 2011) FEDERAL CIRCUIT Diagnostic Method Claims and Biotechnology Related Composition Claims: 3 Claim Formats (1) Isolated DNA for BRAC1 and BRCA 2 Eligible: Distinctive from pure product of nature; Functional utility - primers / probes (2) Method of Screening Potential Therapeutics Eligible: Transformation shown by growing; determining growth rate; comparing 11

Myriad (Cont.) (3) Method of Diagnosis using DNA sequences Ineligible: Methods of “Comparing” or “Analyzing” DNA sequences considered Abstract Mental Processes – Federal Circuit advised action steps including “Extracting” or “Isolating” the sample reflect “Transformation” – “Comparing” or “Analyzing” cannot be the entire process 12

§101 Practice Considerations Avoid method claims where “comparing” or “analyzing” represents the entire process Avoid “data-gathering steps and a fundamental principle” Include “probe” and “primer” claims Use action step “determining” Caution: Multiple action steps requiring multiple parties (triggers divided infringement issue) July 27, 2010 Interim Guidance from USPTO 13

Thank You Judith Roesler Roesler Law Offices, PLLC 1000 Centre Green Way, Suite 200 Cary, NC (919)