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

« Rep. Goodlatte Introduces "Innovation Act" to Combat Patent Trolls | Main | IPLAC IP Law Symposium »

October 24, 2013

Comments

This may also the case to challenge to the so-called "antibody exception" to the written description requirement.

Although I haven't analyzed the claimed sequence and I'm assuming that this was a previously unsequenced gene (prior to the filing of the application), claim 1 of the '925 patent would seem to fall snugly within the cDNA exception carved out by the Supreme Court in Myriad.

Absent some clear definition in the specification that provides some defined structure, claim 1 of the '421 patent is dead on arrival. Claims 2 and 3 seem more viable, although the challenge under 101 to "isolated" naturally occurring proteins is a real issue that the Supreme Court will surely need to address.

Claim 4 of the '421 patent also seems like a non-starter, given that some of the domains referred to are small and likely obvious in view of similiar domains (with similar functions) in many other previously described proteins.

I'm pretty sure that "public health" hasn't been harmed at all by the Myriad decision. But Myriad was harmed and they will certainly be harmed again. That's good for the patent system and everybody else (except Myriad and, I suppose, Myriad's cheerleaders).

Dear Bruce:

Unless the Court's Myriad decision expands to encompass antibiotics, antibodies, anticancer drugs, etc.

We'll see who are the cheerleaders then.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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