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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Court Report | Main | PTAB Life Sciences Report »

September 05, 2016


Yet another dumb decision in what is now a long line of dumb decisions following the Mayo/Myriad/Alice trilogy. With just a smidgen of creative thought the magistrate judge could have found patent eligibility for the kit claims. It appears this magistrate believes it's preferable for companies and investors to engage in non-disclosure, or to simply abandon R&D in diagnostics in favor of areas where there might be some profitability.

"The peptides are synthetic (i.e., made in a lab)."

Straight from the magistrate's memorandum. How can these "synthetic" peptides be a "product of nature"? I agree with AM: "another dumb decision" caused by the equally "dumb" and nonsensical Mayo/Myriad/Alice trilogy.

EG and Atari y'all are complaining about a win for the patentee?

In my scheme, this method is easily eligible (unlike Sequenum's) because the method is not one that merely results in new and useful information; rather it is a method that results in a physical change in the world with IFN-γ arising from the mixing of peptides from ESAT-6.

If that is a novel, non-obvious and fully described physical change, it should result in a patent even if the utility is found in the fact of the change (i.e. as a matter of information).

Sequenum just said "look here to find the information you need using conventional tools" with no physical change in the world that was new, non-obvious, and fully described.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2023

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