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

« Court Report | Main | News from Down Under -- High Court of Australia Confirms That Claims to Methods of Medical Treatment Are Patentable in Australia »

January 13, 2014

Comments

Is it just me, or does this claim seem very similar to the one at issue in Mayo v. Prometheus?

Dyson, it is not just you. It all depends upon the Examiner you get. Some Examiner's allow these whereas others don't. It is extremely frustrating.

The correlation is claimed specifically for "chronic lymphocytic leukemia or B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma". Is that the reason why this patent was granted? There is very little scope for "preemption". Never the less, it will still qualify as 'natural phenomenon'.

Interesting if the Mayo v. Prometheus decision was submitted in an IDSs. It is certainly a publication relevant to patentability.

Didn't the Myriad case indicate that the size of the preemption does not matter? Was it not more simply a matter that the item in question belonged to the warehouse of men, free to all and thus not patent eligible?

Likewise, here mere observation is clearly NOT 'doing more' (as noted in the Prometheus case).

With this in mind, even though this patent was granted, is it enforceable?

Will any attorney filing suit to enforce be able to rely on the statutory presumption of validity enough to outweigh what can arguably be a 'clarification' in law so direct as to nullify the grant?

Also, one wonders if this is not a prime candidate for one of the AIA post-grant challenges.

Will this patent ever be enforced? I am somewhat...

Shocking that this only went through one office action without any §101 rejections. Unbelievable!

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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