On December 11, 2015 Bill Carroll and Heidi Dare's article "A Closer Look At Ariosa After Fed. Circ. Denies Rehearing" was published in Law360.
Brinks Attys. Carroll, Dare Analyze Ariosa Ruling
This past June, in Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., a Federal Circuit panel held that certain prenatal diagnostic testing claims in U.S. patent no. 6,258,540 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a natural phenomenon. On December 2, the Federal Circuit declined review en banc, concluding that the claims failed the inventive concept test in accordance with the Supreme Court’s 2012 holding in Mayo v. Prometheus.
Brinks attorneys William A. Carroll, Ph.D. and Heidi Dare recently published “A Closer Look at Ariosa After Fed. Circ. Denies Rehearing.” at IP Law360. They argue that Ariosa raises the question of whether Mayo permits the interplay between a natural principle and the steps of a process claim to supply an inventive concept under § 101, or whether the inventive concept must reside in the claim elements independent of the natural principle.
Sequenom has not yet announced whether it will file a petition for cert.
This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Gilson & Lione lawyer.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.