United States: Agreeing To Disagree With The Supreme Court: Mayo Is Wrong, Would You Please Fix It?

Three strikes and you're out? The Federal Circuit's per curiam denial of en banc rehearing of Ariosa v. Sequenom, is the third time that Sequenom has seen its diagnostic methods denied patent protection. But the company is likely to continue trying to change this outcome, particularly in view of the Federal Circuit's tortured acknowledgment that its hands are tied by Supreme Court precedent. Since "it ain't over until it's over," until the Supreme Court rules, there is hope for Sequenom's patent and many other diagnostic patent applications currently being denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Hope has never been so justified, in view of some experienced judges explicitly agreeing to disagree with the Supreme Court.

The Federal Circuit has not accepted responsibility for the state of diagnostic patents and personalized medicine, instead attributing it to the Supreme Court because "applying Mayo, we are unfortunately obliged to divorce the additional steps from the asserted natural phenomenon to arrive at a conclusion that they add nothing innovative to the process" (Judge Lourie) or because "we are bound by the language of Mayo, and any further guidance must come from the Supreme Court, not this court" (Judge Dyk). But is that so—even if, as Judge Dyk stated, the "panel's decision to withhold access to patenting . . . is devoid of support" and the "subject matter is not ineligible under Section 101 . . ."? (emphasis added).

Not necessarily. "I do not share their view that this incorrect decision is required by Supreme Court precedent," wrote Judge Newman (emphasis added). The court is not bound by Mayo because "[t]he facts of this case diverge significantly from the facts and rulings in" that case. Judge Newman specifically points to the difference between Sequenom's situation, where the natural law was newly discovered and at least the step involving the starting material was new, and the facts in Mayo, where "both the medicinal product and its metabolites were previously known, leaving sparse room for innovative advance in using this information as a diagnostic dosage tool." In Judge Dyk's view, however, the Supreme Court has spoken:

The Mayo Court found that prior Supreme Court decisions "insist that a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an 'inventive concept,' sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself."

On the other hand, Judges Lourie and Moore share the view that Sequenom's claims do not "merely recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea." They agree that "[t]he claims rely on or operate by, but do not recite, a natural phenomenon or law" and instead recite steps that "are all physical, and not insignificant, steps requiring human intervention." They agree that the claims "recite innovative and practical uses for [cffDNA]" and that "it is undisputed that before [Sequenom's] invention, the ... use of these methods for prenatal diagnosis were not routine and conventional" (emphasis in original). Yet in spite of this view, Judges Lourie and Moore found "no principled basis to distinguish this case from Mayo."

One unexpected item in this decision was Judge Lourie's proposal for a different way of claiming the invention through an improvement-based "Jepson claim," such as:

In a method of performing a prenatal diagnosis using techniques of fractionation and amplification, the improvement consisting of using the non-cellular fraction of a maternal blood sample.

The Judge saw Sequenom's invention as an "improvement in the method of determining fetal genetic characteristics or diagnosing abnormalities of fetal DNA, consisting of use of the non-cellular fraction of fetal DNA obtained from a maternal blood sample." A claim of this general format may have been sufficient to protect Sequenom's invention, but it is not clear whether this format would be applicable to all types of diagnostic inventions. Nevertheless, it is refreshing that a Federal Circuit judge would propose an alternative claim strategy in the face of "the accusation that such a claim to the invention might be considered mere draftsmanship and thus still ineligible under the seemingly expansive holding of Mayo . . . ." It is also inspirational to have two judges consider that "claim drafting is a laudable professional skill, not necessarily a devious device for avoiding prohibitions," encouraging practitioners to creatively revisit their claim strategies for alternative ways of claiming their Applicants' diagnostic inventions.

But it is Judge Dyk's opinion that offers the most helpful insight into how to meet the elusive "inventive concept" requirement of the Mayo framework. In fact, it would seem that at least some of Sequenom's claims, untouched, might already meet this requirement. As Judge Dyk "see[s] it,"

[T]here is a problem with Mayo insofar as it concludes that inventive step cannot come from discovering something new in nature—e.g., identification of a previously unknown natural relationship or property. In my view, Mayo did not fully take into account the fact that an inventive concept can come not just from creative, unconventional application of a natural law, but also from the creativity and novelty of the discovery of the law itself.

Judge Dyk's reasoning is consonant with the Supreme Court statement in Myriad that "an inventive concept can sometimes come from discovery of an unknown natural phenomenon, not just from unconventional application of a phenomenon." As Judge Dyk points out, it is very important to note that Myriad suggested that "'new applications of knowledge about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 [newly discovered genes]' could generally be eligible, with reference to claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,753,441."

The difference between Myriad's claim 21 (which, unfortunately, was not part of the case before the Supreme Court) and the claims that were found to be patent ineligible is that it is directed to detecting specific, newly discovered gene mutations (38 of them). Judge Dyk suggests that the Supreme Court's implication that Myriad's claim 21 is patent eligible is due to the fact that it "is narrowly tailored to what the patent applicant has actually invented and reduced to practice." (emphasis added). In effect, Judge Dyk set forth a new "more permissive" measure of "inventive concept," one that renders patent eligible claims that are "both narrow in scope and actually reduced to practice, not merely 'constructively' reduced to practice by filing of a patent application replete with prophetic examples."

Judge Dyk describes his proposed approach as supported by Morse, a seminal patent eligibility case. This coalescence between claim scope and novelty of the discovery for purposes of establishing "inventive concept" is not only creative but perhaps workable. As Judge Dyk states:

The approach would, I think, ensure that only diagnostic and therapeutic method patents limited in their claim scope would survive. These patents would provide the world with disclosure and useful applications of previously unknown natural laws, and the opportunity to obtain such patents would help to restore the incentive to make those discoveries that the patent system has historically provided.

That might be so. From a pragmatic standpoint, this approach also provides a more exact test for patent eligibility than anything the courts have said so far, making it much more useful to practitioners, investors, and the industry in general. But it is likely that this approach would not always serve the needs of the community developing diagnostic tests for personalized medicine. First, as Judge Dyk warns, this test "could [still] present difficulties of definition and line drawing." Second, "representative examples" of the invention possessed by the inventor would no longer suffice. And it would be difficult, for example, to reduce to practice prior to filing all applications of the discovery of a natural correlation linking a certain marker to cancer. It is more likely that only a subset of cancers would have been actually tested prior to filing the application. And limiting the claims to that subset would leave unprotected obvious variations of the method, even when the subset of cancers disclosed is clearly representative and predictive of others.

Although at least some judges have taken positive steps by recognizing that "discoveries" are patent eligible (which many consider to be mandated by statute), the fact of the matter is that the per curiam denial rules. And, right or wrong, "method claims that apply newly discovered laws and phenomena in somewhat conventional ways are screened out by the Mayo test." (Judge Dyk). Even Judges Lourie and Moore recognize that, unfortunately, "a crisis of patent law and medical innovation may be upon us."

Will the Supreme Court take this case and provide the final (and hopefully more instructive) word on the patent eligibility of diagnostic-related claims? Sequenom has until early next year to petition for certiorari. If granted, the case would be argued in the Fall of 2016. Thus, the ball is in Sequenom's court.

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
23 Sep 2018, Seminar, Chicago, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Intellectual Property Owners Association Annual Meeting, supporting the Women in IP Networking Brunch.

26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

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