United States: Fed. Circ. Clarifies The Test For Patentable Subject Matter

Originally published by Law360

A recent Federal Circuit decision should bring hope to those discouraged by recent decisions invalidating patents for lacking patentable subject matter. The simplistic application by many district courts of the "laws of nature are unpatentable subject matter" test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) may have led some to conclude that thousands of patents are at risk. However, comparing the claims held to be directed to an unpatentable law of nature in Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v.  Sequenom  Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), with claims that were deemed valid in Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect Inc., No. 2015-1570, 2016 WL 3606624 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), may help to allay those fears, and may help practitioners write better claims and defend patents against attacks of invalidity.

Background: The Supreme Court's Mayo Test for Patentable Subject Matter

In Mayo, the Supreme Court confirmed that there is a natural phenomenon exception to patentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Under Mayo, if (1) patent claims are "directed to" a law of nature; then (2) they must be analyzed to determine whether the claim elements transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of that natural law. Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1375, citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297-98. Mayo step (2) involves what the Supreme Court characterized as a search for an "inventive concept," to determine whether the claims cover "significantly more" than an ineligible law of nature. Id. citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294.

The Claims in Ariosa Diagnostics Were Held to Describe a Natural Phenomenon

The Federal Circuit's decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, regarding Pat. No. 6,258,540 (the '540 Patent) provides a useful illustration of claims the Federal Circuit considered to come under Mayo's proscription against patenting laws of nature. The inventors discovered that cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) exists in a pregnant mother's blood stream. Therefore, dangerous conventional tests that breached the amniotic sac were not needed to collect fetal DNA.

Claim 1 of the '540 Patent reads as follows:

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.

Ariosa, 778 F.3d at 1373-74. The court concluded that this claim was little more than a general method for detecting naturally occurring cffDNA. Id. at 1376.

This conclusion even applied to claim 25, below, which describes performing a diagnosis and the prior art did not recognize that maternal blood could be collected, that paternal DNA in that blood could be amplified or that paternally inherited DNA could be analyzed in that sample. Id.

25. A method for performing a prenatal diagnosis on a maternal blood sample, which method comprises

obtaining a non-cellular fraction of the blood sample

amplifying a paternally inherited nucleic acid from the non-cellular fraction

and performing nucleic acid analysis on the amplified nucleic acid to detect paternally inherited fetal nucleic acid.

Id. at 1374. There were no dependent claims to narrow the steps of claim 25.

The Federal Circuit confirmed that the '540 Patent's claims represented unpatentable subject matter:

the asserted claims of the '540 patent are directed to a multistep method that starts with cffDNA taken from a sample of maternal plasma or serum — a naturally occurring non-cellular fetal DNA that circulates freely in the blood stream of a pregnant woman. ... a natural phenomenon. ...it is undisputed that the location of the nucleic acids existed in nature before Drs. Lo and Wainscoat found them. The method ends with paternally inherited cffDNA, which is also a natural phenomenon. The method therefore begins and ends with a natural phenomenon. Thus, the claims are directed to matter that is naturally occurring.

Id. at 1376 (emphasis added). That the same DNA was there at both the start and end of the method and was inherently there during past methods, even if not recognized, seems to have influenced the decision.

In his concurrence, Judge Richard Linn expressed his disappointment that he felt "bound by the sweeping language of the test set out in Mayo." Id. at 1380.

The Supreme Court's blanket dismissal of conventional post-solution steps leaves no room to distinguish Mayo from this case, even though here, no one was amplifying and detecting paternally-inherited cffDNA using the plasma or serum of pregnant mothers. Indeed, the maternal plasma used to be "routinely discarded."

Id. at 1381 (Linn concurrence) (emphasis added).

Rapid Litigation Gives Hope to Patentees

The Federal Circuit's analysis in Rapid Litigation helps show how certain claims can survive both Mayo steps (1) and (2). The invention claimed in Pat. No. 7,604,929 (the '929 patent) related to a method of processing hepatocytes, a type of liver cell that is useful for testing and treatment purposes. 2016 WL 3606624, at *1. Although freezing the cells was a desirable way to prolong their usefulness, prior to the '929 patent, it was believed that hepatocytes could only be frozen once. Id. The inventors discovered that some hepatocyte cells could be refrozen and a identified a method for collecting and refreezing those cells.

Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A method of producing a desired preparation of multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes, said hepatocytes, being capable of being frozen and thawed at least two times, and in which greater than 70% of the hepatocytes of said preparation are viable after the final thaw, said method comprising:

(A) subjecting hepatocytes that have been frozen and thawed to density gradient fractionation to separate viable hepatocytes from non-viable hepatocytes,

(B) recovering the separated viable hepatocytes, and

(C) cryopreserving the recovered viable hepatocytes to thereby form said desired preparation of hepatocytes without requiring a density gradient step after thawing the hepatocytes for the second time, wherein the hepatocytes are not plated between the first and second cryopreservations, and wherein greater than 70% of the hepatocytes of said preparation are viable after the final thaw.

Id. at *2.

The district court ruled that under step (1) the '929 patent was directed to an unpatentable law of nature. ("that [some] hepatocytes are capable of surviving multiple freeze-thaw cycles"); and that under step (2), the individual steps of the claimed method were conventional. Id.

The Federal Circuit reversed. The court concluded that although the claims involved a natural law, they were not "directed to" that natural law, but to a process deriving its benefit from that natural law. Id. at *4. The Rapid Litigation panel indicated that in Ariosa, the presence of cffDNA in blood or serum was natural and the steps merely identified what was naturally present. The court in Ariosa may have been influenced by the lack of specificity or transformation and considered the claims to be nothing more than an artful way of indicating that the natural phenomenon should be applied, but without indicating how.

The court considered the '929 patent's claims to recite more than the ability of hepatocyte cells to survive multiple freeze-thaw cycles.

Through the recited steps, the patented invention achieves a better way of preserving hepatocytes. ... That one way of describing the process is to describe the natural ability of the subject matter to undergo the process does not make the claim "directed to" that natural ability.

Id at *4. The court also stated that Mayo has been interpreted too narrowly: "Indeed, to preclude the patenting of an invention simply because it touches on something natural would 'eviscerate patent law.'" Id. at *6, citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1293.

The Rapid Litigation panel's discussion of Mayo step (2), i.e., whether the steps amounted to an inventive concept, is also illustrative. The court acknowledged that each of the individual steps of the method (freezing, thawing and separating) were conventional. Id., citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1298. However, the court clarified that under Mayo step (2), the claim steps are not looked at in isolation, but in combination. Id. at *6, citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The court explained that whereas performing freeze-thaw cycles may be known, repeating the freeze-thaw cycle with hepatocytes was not. Id. at *7. Similarly, a gradient centrifugation separation step after the first freeze-thaw cycle of hepatocytes was new.

Finally, the court explained that patent eligibility and obviousness should be examined under separate provisions of the patent act. Rapid Litigation, 2016 WL 3606624, at *7, citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct at 1304. Unfortunately, the court stopped short of clarifying that indefiniteness under § 112 also warrants a separate analysis.

Lessons From the Claim Comparison

An element-by-element comparison (with the benefit of hindsight) can help illustrate the differences between claim 25 of the Ariosa '540 patent and claim 1 of the Rapid Litigation '929 patent.

'540 Preamble:

25. A method for performing a prenatal diagnosis on a maternal blood sample, which method comprises ...

'929 Preamble:

1. A method of producing a desired preparation of multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes, said hepatocytes, being capable of being frozen and thawed at least two times, and in which greater than 70% of the hepatocytes of said preparation are viable after the final thaw, said method comprising ...

The '540 patent's preamble is more general than the '929's. For example, the '540 claim contains no description of the type of prenatal diagnosis. In contrast, the '929 preamble very specifically describes producing hepatocytes that are capable of being frozen and thawed at least two times with greater than 70 percent viability. A reasonable conclusion is that the more specific a claim, the less likely the court should conclude that it is directed to a natural law. In addition, the '929 patent's claim describes transformations that occur during performance of the method, whereas the '540 patent's claim does not.

Turning to the individual claim steps:

Steps of '540 Claim 25:

obtaining a non-cellular fraction of the blood sample

amplifying a paternally inherited nucleic acid from the non-cellular fraction

performing nucleic acid analysis on the amplified nucleic acid to detect paternally inherited fetal nucleic acid.

Step (A) of 929 Claim 1:

(A) subjecting hepatocytes that have been frozen and thawed to density gradient fractionation to separate viable hepatocytes from non-viable hepatocytes.

The court in Ariosa concluded that the claim steps do not describe how the non-cellular fraction is obtained, nor how one is to go about amplifying the paternally inherited nucleic acid from the noncellular fraction. Similarly, claim 25 does not specify the type of analysis to be performed, nor how the nucleic acid is detected. It appears that such generality makes it more likely a court will conclude that the individual steps do not support patentability.

In contrast, '929 patent claim 1 specifies performing density gradient fractionation; and not on any collection of hepatocytes, but to hepatocytes that had been frozen and thawed. The court also found it noteworthy that "[a]dditional dependent claims are directed to the type of density gradient fractionation, the type of hepatocytes, viability, and pooling." Id. at *2.

Another important lesson is to include claims of varying scope. Although it may be useful to obtain broad claims by describing features with generality, each of those broad steps should be narrowed in dependent claims to define increasingly specific methods or products.

Finally, in Ariosa, the court explained that with respect to the claims, the method "begins and ends with a natural phenomenon." Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1376. In contrast, the '929 claims begin with hepatocytes that have been frozen, then subject them to a separation step, then end with a new preparation having a higher percentage of viable cells than when the method started. Rapid Litigation, 2016 WL 3606624, at *5. It should not be forgotten that in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010), the court indicated that the "machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." Rapid Litigation confirms that a claim that describes a transformation may be more likely to be upheld than one where no change to the starting material is described. 2016 WL 3606624, at *4-5.


The application of law of nature exception to patentable subject matter clearly involves unpredictability. However, increasing specificity, describing transformations, adding claims of varying scope and recognizing that claims must be considered as a whole should increase the chance of a patent being upheld.

By Matthew Siegal, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, a partner in Stroock's Intellectual Property Practice Group in New York.

Matthew Siegal will be speaking at the Centerforce IP Strategy Summit NYC 2016 on October 27, 2016.  For further details, Click Here

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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.