E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Study Finds That Foreign-Born Inventors Play Prominent Role at Top U.S. Patent-Producing Universities | Main | Biosimilars and Biobetters Conference »

July 05, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201676836fd44970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USPTO Issues Interim Guidance Regarding Mayo v. Prometheus:

Comments

I would have liked the memo to say: "Because the Supreme Court said so, a claim directed to simply administering a man-made drug that does not recite other steps or elements directed to use of a natural principle, such as a naturally occurring correlation, would be directed to eligible subject matter.  Further, a claim that recites a novel drug or a new use of an existing drug, in combination with a natural principle, would be sufficiently specific to be eligible because the claim would amount to significantly more than the natural principle itself."

Without the random exemption by the Court, it seems to me that once a drug is administered to a subject the natural principle of its action upon the subject puts it within this analysis. Sure, perhaps you can treat a disease with other drugs, but you can also perhaps diagnose a disease with other biomarkers, clinical symptoms, etc. Nobody gets a claim to a method of diagnosing a disease in a patient comprising detecting a threshold amount of any physiological, genetic, or biochemical marker in a sample from the patient, wherein the marker indicates a likelihood of disease. The definintion of the scope of a "natural principle" seems to shift depending on the nature of the process being claimed.

This memo only highlights the buckshot reasoning of the Mayo opinion. I guess the PTO had to fashion some type of workable analysis though. Next on the chopping block, isolated DNAs.

Don,

These interim guidelines show the mischief created by the nebulous opinion written in Mayo in terms of what medical diagnostic methods will pass muster under 35 USC 101. Some of the examples provided are helpful, but others are not. Until we get some articulation from at least the Federal Circuit as to what will pass must, medical diagnostic methods are currently in the "Twilight Zone."

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31