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
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Celgene Corp. v. Peter (Fed. Cir. 2019) | Main | IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2018 »

August 06, 2019

Comments

Nice to know that at least some jurisdictions still get this right.

Can we get Judge Beach appointed to the CAFC?

Haven't we seen this movie before. I can remember when the AU Federal Court upheld Myriad's claims even after the SCotUS tanked them. Then along came the AU Supreme Court and reversed the AU Federal Court, tanking the claims as well. How certain are we that this represents a real break with U.S. craziness? I am still waiting to see whether the other shoe does or does not drop.

In nature, the presence of cffDNA in the maternal blood has not and cannot be detected without human action that's really a wonderful interpretation so it may qualify as patentable subject matter.

But at the same time what was the thought process of the inventors or what prompted them to think of the said cffDNA being present in the maternal blood to be evaluated since the technique used to diagnose cffDNA is well known and the said cffDNA is a resultant of an in vivo process.

You may have a point in your analysis, but you had to somehow tie President Trump to the problems with the patent system. Why not discuss your issue without unnecessarily adding your political point of view. Please remember that not everyone agrees with your snarky comments.

Most sincere thanks to Dr Shoebridge.

In the UK, a 9th Edition of the CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts is in preparation for publication at the end of 2019, and our attention has been drawn to Sequenom Australia just in time for a mention in Section 001 to be included.

The decision is of added weight because it is the result of full trial with expert evidence and cross-examination which was not available to the Federal Circuit judges who considered the corresponding US case. In any sane regime, the Australian outcome would be of great persuasive authority in the US because of the forensic testing to which the evidence was subjected and the opportunity for the trial judge to write a more fully informed and balanced opinion.

It is particularly unfortunate that this landmark decision did not arrive in time to be taken into account in the en banc petition in Athena.

I have to wonder at the wishful thinking of Mr. Cole's:

"In any sane regime, the Australian outcome would be of great persuasive authority in the US"

While there is certainly something to be learned by engaging in comparative analysis of patent cases in different legal regimes, and certainly not withstanding any accommodations made by engaging in certain treaties (and any ensuing enacting legislation, given that treaties by themselves are generally NOT self-enacting in US law), it is a step TOO FAR to denigrate any type of lack of automatic "effect" of a case in one Sovereign to any case (related or not) in another Sovereign.

Perhaps this is merely "picking a nit," and if so, feel free to ignore this (as well as the nit).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

October 2019

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