United States: Federal Circuit Decision In Ariosa v. Sequenom Offers Further Clarification On The Scope Of Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its eagerly anticipated decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom,1 which assessed the subject matter eligibility of claims directed to a diagnostic method under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case involved U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 ("the '540 patent") directed to methods of non-invasively measuring cell-free fetal DNA ("cffDNA") in maternal plasma and serum. Despite the discovery of unique diagnostic benefits in what had formerly been considered waste material, the court affirmed the invalidity of the asserted claims of the '540 patent, explaining that "[w]here claims of a method patent are directed to an application that starts and ends with a naturally occurring phenomenon, the patent fails to disclose patent-eligible subject matter if the methods [used to measure a sample] themselves are conventional, routine and well understood applications in the art."2 Ariosa repeats the Supreme Court's caution that "[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry."3 The decision adds to a spate of recent cases marking a shift in the law on patentable subject matter, a trend that started with the Supreme Court decisions in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,4 and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,5 and continued more recently in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.6 Here, we examine post-Alice USPTO guidance and case law addressing the subject matter eligibility of natural products and phenomena.

Shortly after Alice was decided, the USPTO issued a revised Guidance to examiners addressing patent subject matter eligibility.7 The Office emphasized the two-step analysis of Alice, requiring examiners to determine if a claim is "directed to" a natural law or product of nature by looking for "markedly different characteristics," and if no such marked difference is identified, to assess whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. The Guidance requires examiners to apply this analysis to all claims (product and process) that contain a judicial exception. The Office acknowledged the possibility that a marked difference could be shown by structure, function, or "other pertinent properties." And the Office emphasized that claims that clearly do not seek to "tie up" a judicial exception and preempt others from using it should be subject to a "streamlined" eligibility analysis. Various hypothetical examples were provided by the Office, including examples of patent-eligible subject matter. For example, the Guidance indicates that certain combinations of natural products and methods of treatment should be considered patent-eligible subject matter. District courts have begun to take note of the revised Guidance, citing it as persuasive reasoning when assessing the patent eligibility of challenged claims.8

One day after the USPTO issued its revised Guidance, the Federal Circuit addressed the patent eligibility of natural products and correlations in Myriad Genetics, Inc. v. Ambry Genetics Corp ("Ambry").9 That case, an appeal of a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, involved a series of previously unasserted claims from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents at issue in the earlier Myriad Supreme Court decision. The asserted claims related to, inter alia, nucleotide primers for amplifying the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, as well as methods of diagnosing breast cancer by comparing a patient's BRCA genotype against a wild-type sequence. In Ambry, the court held that neither the primer claims nor the method claims were patent eligible.

Addressing the primer claims, the court concluded that the "primers before us are not distinguishable from the isolated DNA found patent-ineligible in Myriad and are not similar to the cDNA found to be patent-eligible."10 The court stated that the primer nucleotide sequences were identical to those of naturally occurring DNA, and further that the intended use of the primers mimicked the natural DNA function of base pairing with complementary sequences.11 Nor did the single-stranded nature of the primers render them patent eligible. Rather, the court analogized the preparation of single-stranded primers to the ineligible act of "separating [DNA] from its surrounding genetic material."12 As such, because Myriad's claimed primers shared sequences and base-pairing function with naturally occurring nucleic acids, they were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

In addressing the method claims, the Ambry court applied the two-step analysis outlined in Alice: (1) determine whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as a product of nature, natural law, or abstract idea, and if so, (2) determine whether the remaining elements of the claim, alone or in combination, are sufficient to transform the claim into a patent-eligible application. The court explained that the method claims at issue were directed to "a patent-ineligible abstract idea of comparing . . . and determining the existence of alterations."13 The court then conducted the second part of the two-step test and found the "non-patent-ineligible elements" insufficient to support patentability.14 Rather, the physical interventions required by the claims — such as hybridizing gene probes, amplifying the BRCA1 and BRCA2 loci, and sequencing those loci — were seen by the Court as "well-understood, routine and conventional activity engaged in by scientists at the time of Myriad's patent applications," not least because Myriad's own specification indicated that routine methods known to those of skill in the art could be used to detect and sequence the loci.15 Thus, when assessed "as a whole," the Court found that the asserted method claims were insufficient to rise to the level of patent-eligible subject matter.16 Although not before the court, Myriad's patent also contained narrower claims to determining a risk of breast cancer by detecting mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes selected from a list of particular mutations reported in the specification. In dicta, the Federal Circuit suggested that these claims might be "qualitatively different from the [invalid] method claims at issue."17

Following Ambry, five district court cases have (to date) relied on the decision. In only one of those five cases, Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLC, has a district court found a claim to a natural product or diagnostic method patent eligible.18 That case involved a claimed method of measuring metabolite levels in a patient's urine and comparing them to creatinine levels.

In the recent Ariosa decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment issued by Judge Illston of the Northern District of California. The district court had held the claims of the '540 patent invalid. Claim 1 of the '540 patent, directed to a method of measuring cffDNA in maternal plasma or serum, states:

1. A method for detecting a paternally inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin performed on a maternal serum or plasma sample from a pregnant female, which method comprises amplifying a paternally inherited nucleic acid from the serum or plasma sample and detecting the presence of a paternally inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin in the sample.

The court noted that the dependent claims expand on the methods for detecting cffDNA and using the detected cffDNA in prenatal diagnosis.19

Assessing these claims, the court reiterated the two-step analysis required by Mayo and Alice, namely "determin[ing] whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept" and, if so, "consider[ing] the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application."20 While noting that the '540 patent recites method claims, which are "generally eligible subject matter," the court went on to point out that the claimed method "begins and ends with a natural phenomenon," i.e., the presence of cffDNA in maternal blood and the diagnostic implications that can be made by correlating that cffDNA with paternally inherited nucleic acid.21 Thus, the court concluded that the claims of the '540 patent satisfy the first step of the analysis laid out in Alice because they are "directed to matter that is naturally occurring."22

The Court next evaluated the second step of the analysis to determine whether the remaining elements of the claims in the '540 patent "transform" the natural phenomenon into a patent-eligible application.23 Despite the presence of claims to particular methods for amplifying, detecting, and correlating cffDNA with paternally inherited nucleic acid, the Court concluded that the claims were insufficient to integrate the naturally occurring material into a patent-eligible application. Rather, the specific methods recited in the claims were considered "routine and conventional," particularly in light of the guidance in the specification indicating that amplification, detection, and correlation could be done using "standard techniques."24 The decision then concluded by reiterating the Supreme Court guidance from Mayo that "appending routine, conventional steps to a natural phenomenon, specified at a high level of generality, is not enough to supply an inventive concept. Where claims of a method patent are directed to an application that starts and ends with a naturally occurring phenomenon, the patent fails to disclose patent eligible subject matter if the methods themselves are conventional, routine and well understood applications in the art."25 As such, the Federal Circuit found the claims of the ′540 patent at issue on appeal invalid.

The Federal Circuit next rejected Sequenom's argument that the '540 patent claims were patent eligible because they did not preempt all uses of cffDNA.26 The court explained that "[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."27 The court further noted that "[w]here a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot."28

Additional litigation will undoubtedly be required to further delineate the shifting standard for assessing patentable subject matter in view of Ariosa and Ambry. Interested stakeholders should continue to monitor the space, including whether either of these decisions will be subject to additional en banc review by the Federal Circuit or review by the United States Supreme Court.

Footnotes

1 Nos. 2014–1139, 2014–1144.

2 Id. at 6.

3 Ariosa, slip op. at 16 (citing Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117).

4 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).

5 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013).

6 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).

7 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014).

8 See Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., No. 10 C-4053, 2015 WL 1523818 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2015); see also TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., No. 13-1703-LPS, 2015 WL 1927696 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2015) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., Nos. 10–1067–LPS and 12–1581–LPS, 2015 WL 1843528 (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2015).
9 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

10 Ambry, 774 F.3d at 760.

11 Id. at 760-761.

12 Id. at 760 (also pointing to the cloned, and therefore genetically identical, sheep held patent ineligible in In re Roslin Institute, 750 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).

13 Ambry, 774 F.3d at 763.

14 Id. at 764.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id. at 765.

18 2015 WL 728501, No. 13–cv–832–wmc (W.D. Wis. Feb. 19, 2015).

19 Ariosa, slip op. at 5.

20Id. at 3.

21 Id. at 4.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24Id. at 5.

25 Id. at 6.

26 Id. at 14.

27 Id

28 Id. at 14-15.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
14 Oct 2018, Conference, Boston, United States

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of the Licensing Executives Society Annual Meeting. The program will take place at the Marriott Copley Place in Boston, Massachusetts.

15 Oct 2018, Conference, California, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the 30th annual All Hands Meeting, hosted by Ivy Events. Finnegan partners Justin Hendrix and Jacob Schroeder will present "Extraterritoriality: A Big Word That Just Got Smaller."

17 Oct 2018, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a Platinum sponsor of the ChIPs Women in Tech, Law, & Policy Global Summit. The program will take place at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, DC.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions