Tag: patent eligibility

Does the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” Revive Diagnostic Claims?

On June 22, Senator Chris Coons, along with Thom Tillis introduced the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” (hereinafter “the Act”) to amend 35 USC s. 101 to clarify the scope of patent-eligible subject matter. Section 101(b) would be amended to delete “includes a new use of a known process” and insert “includes a use, application, or method of manufacture of a known or naturally occurring process.” A section (k) would be added to define the term “useful” as meaning that the invention or discovery has a “specific and practical utility” from the perspective of a POSA. So far, so good. The use of a naturally occurring process can be read to cover the use of a naturally occurring correlation, an “If A then B” claim. The recognition of the discovery of the utility of a naturally occurring correlation, which leads to a diagnostic conclusion would seem to be included in this broad language.

But now things get a bit sketchy. The Act would abolish all the current judicial, e.g. Chakrabarty, exclusions but would add a set of statutory exclusions that overlap the judicial exclusions in some places. The exclusions include “an unmodified human gene”—good-bye Myriad—and an unmodified natural material as that material exists in nature, e.g., water. This exclusion would not jeopardize diagnostic claims since a per se is not being claimed.

More troublesome, Section C of the exclusions would include a process that “occurs in nature wholly independent of, and prior to, any human activity.” Diagnostic claims are process claims that are based on the recognition of the utility of a correlation that takes place in the body. The utility of the diagnostic claim lies solely in the recognition of the utility of the correlation. If a man has an elevated level of PSA he is at risk of developing, or may already have, prostate cancer. But isn’t the relationship between PSA levels and cancer/no cancer a process that occurs in nature wholly independent of, and prior to, any human activity, such as sampling and measuring the level of PSA in the blood? Please read the Act and tell me why I am wrong.

© 2023 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more Intellectual Property Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Tillis Bill Tries to Fix Section 101

This recently introduced bill would replace section 101 with a lot of text. The commentators are all commentating, but I have yet to read whether or not the “outlaw” status of claims to diagnostic methods—led by varying interpretations of Mayo v. Prometheus—has been clearly lifted by this bill. Here are the relevant parts, at least setting up the discussion on this point.

Section 101. Patent Eligibility

(a) IN GENERAL—Whoever [post- Thaler v. Vidal, we know that this must be a human being] invents or discovers any useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject only to the exclusions in section (b) and to the further conditions and requirements of this title.

(b) ELIGIBILITY EXCLUSIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a person may not obtain a patent for any of the following, if claimed as such:

***

(B) A process that—

          ***

(iii) occurs in nature wholly independent of, and prior to, any human activity.

(C) An unmodified human gene, as that gene exists in the human body.

(D) An unmodified natural material, as that material exists in nature.

(2)  CONDITIONS.—

 ***

(B) HUMAN GENES AND NATURAL MATERIALS.—For the purposes of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph (1), a human gene or natural material that is isolated, purified, enriched, or otherwise altered by human activity, or that is otherwise employed in a useful invention or discovery, shall not be considered to be unmodified.

(c) ELIGIBILITY

(1) IN GENERAL.—In determining whether, under this section, a claimed invention is eligible for a patent, eligibility shall be determined

(A) By considering the claimed invention as a whole and without discounting or disregarding any claim element; and

(B) Without regard to—

***

(ii) whether a claim element is known, conventional, routine, or naturally occurring

***

Well now, does this bill abrogate Mayo v. Prometheus and permit patents on diagnostic assays as simple as “If A, then B” (If assay indicates high homocysteine then diagnostic conclusion is low cobalamin)? Let’s start with a simple “If A, then B” claim, like the one in Athena (If autoantibodies to MuSK are detected, subject may be afflicted with MG). The presence of antibodies that bind to MuSK occurs in nature wholly independently and prior to any human activity. See, section I (B) (iii). So to be patentable, a process comprising the detection of the antibodies or of a MuSK-antibody complex in order to diagnose MG must fall within one of the “conditions” of the statute as set forth in 2(B).

The problem, and I hope it is not a big one, is that 2(B) does not mention “processes” employing “natural materials.” Applicants are left to argue that the anti-MuSK antibodies per se are altered by human activity, e.g., by binding to MuSK, and so are “modified.” They can also argue that the antibodies are employed in a useful discovery since they are the biomarker for MG. But, of course, the applicants wanted to claim a process, not just the biomarker detected by the assay.

Regarding diagnostics, is the key phrase “otherwise employed in a useful invention or discovery”? Of course, the argument is that the useful invention or discovery is the diagnostic process, from initial sampling to drawing a diagnostic conclusion. For years I have proposed that s. 101 bills on diagnostic clams need a sentence like, “A process includes recognition of the utility of a naturally occurring correlation.” In other words, you are not trying to patent the correlation itself, like “blood containing antibodies that bind to MuSK”. The necessary steps include both isolation and detection of the antibodies and recognition that their presence indicates something about the patient. (Note that Mayo did not invent the correlation between the level of the metabolites of the administered drug and the need to adjust the dose of the drug. Mayo took a known correlation and refined the optimal range of metabolite concentration that arose after administration of the “parent drug”. One could call this the recognition that an improved correlation could be reached, but nothing in the Tillis bill says that, apart from novelty, the invention needs to be improved over any earlier version or alternative. This draft of the bill needs some work but it is a valuable start to ending the s. 101 nightmare.

Article By Warren Woessner of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

CareDx v. Natera – The Broad Road to Patent Ineligibility

In CareDx v Natera, Appeal No. 2022-1027, (Fed. Cir., July 18, 2022), a three judge panel of Judges Lourie, Bryson and Hughes, affirmed the district court’s finding that the claims of U. S. patent nos. 8703652, 9845497 and 10329607 are invalid for failing to survive the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility. I subtitled this post using Mathew 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road, that leads to destruction.” The appeal to the Federal Circuit, which I wrote about on October 15, 2021, never got on the narrow road that leads to viable diagnostic claims. It may not have been possible to overcome the obstacles that blocked the road, but CareDx managed to hit them all, and ended up with three invalid patents on natural phenomena.

The claims were directed to a method for detecting transplant rejection or organ failure by isolating and genotyping a sample from the subject who received the donation, quantifying the cfDNA, and diagnosing the transplant status for an increase in donor cfDNA over time. An increase indicates possible transplant failure.

Judge Lourie summarized the claims, some of which are more than a page long, this way:

“Here, as in Ariosa, the claims boil down to collecting a bodily sample, analyzing the cfDNA  using conventional techniques, including PCR, identifying naturally occurring DNA from the donor organ, and then using the natural correlation between heightened cfDNA levels and transplant health, to identify a potential rejection, none of which was inventive. The claims here are equally as ineligible as those in Ariosa.”

Let’s take a quick look at how CareDx got onto the broad road. CareRx hoped to avoid Ariosa by arguing that it was doing more than just measuring a biomarker correlated to an existing phenomenon. Problem 1 is that CareDx did not discover the correlation; it just improved on it (or did it?). Louie writes:

“CareDx argues that the patents’ claims are directed not to natural phenomena, but to improved laboratory techniques. CareDx contends that the ‘claimed advance’ is an ‘improved, human-designed method for measuring increases in donor cfDNA in a recipient’s body to identify organ rejection.’ … In particular, CareDx identifies the use of digital PCR, NGS, and selective amplification to more accurately measure the donor SNPs of cfDNA transplant recipients. However, CareDx does not actually claim any improvements in laboratory techniques … Furthermore the specification admits that the laboratory techniques disclosed in the claims require only conventional techniques and off-the-shelf technology.”

In fact, CareDx had at least one claim in the ‘497 patent that recites that the assay detects the donor-specific circulating cfDNA from the organ transplant when the donor-specific circulating cfDNA [makes] up at least 0.3% of the total circulating cfDNA in the biological sample. I presume that this claim limitation was put into the claim so that “improvement”  could be argued, but the limitation is not mentioned in the opinion.

Let’s look at a few other things CareDx encountered on its broad road to legal destruction. The panel looked at every step of the method in isolation. In other words, once CareDx argued “improvement” it was forced to admit that the specification disclosed that all those analytical techniques, such as PCR, NGS and “selective amplification”, would be considered as conventional in the art. CareDx might have relied on some of the decisions finding patent eligibility where physical equipment was necessarily involved, such as XL LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics or Illumina v Ariosa.

The finding of conventionality of individual steps permitted the court and the panel to effectively rule that the method was directed to a natural product, since the devices used to carry it out were given no weight. Therefore, the patents failed to pass Step 1 of Mayo/Alice. Could it have been argued, if that was the case, that the equipment used to carry out the method was arranged in a novel sequence? (Also, is someone going to argue that PCR involves replicating small amounts of DNA to afford useful amounts? – This is accomplished by the hand of man.)

These are minor thoughts, CareDX should left the word “diagnostic” out of the claims and the specification. This is certainly no more of a diagnostic test than the Mayo range-finding step was. It is presently clear that in the life sciences, recognition of the utility of a naturally occurring correlation is not enough to avoid patent ineligibility. Of course, and this is cold comfort to CareDx, would it have helped to get this method into the safe harbor of methods of medical treatment? In other words, the first step could recite the actual transplantation step and/or the final step of the process could recite some sort of medical intervention. Narrower claims might have returned CareDx to the narrow path of patent life.

Article By Warren Woessner of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

Federal Circuit Concurring Opinion Recommends En Banc Review of Prior Ineligible Subject Matter Decision

On October 9, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment of invalidity due to patent-ineligible subject matter in Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, No. 2017-1690, applying its prior holding concerning claims directed to similar technology in In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755, 760 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  In a concurring opinion, Judge O’Malley recommended that the full court revisit the holding in BRCA1.  If the full court decides to revisit BRCA1, this could strengthen patent protection for other biotech inventions.

Background

Roche’s U.S. Pat. No. 5,643,723 includes claims directed to a method for detecting a pathogenic bacterium using a short, single-stranded nucleotide sequence known as a “primer” and other claims directed to the primers themselves.

Roche accused Cepheid of infringing the ‘723 patent and Cepheid filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion, relying on the Federal Circuit’s holding in BRCA1 relating to primers.  Specifically, the district court held that the claims were unpatentable under § 101 because “the primer claims in this case, which have genetic sequences identical to those found in nature, are indistinguishable from those held to be directed to nonpatentable subject matter in In Re BRCA1.”

Majority Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment of patent ineligibility based on its prior holding in BRCA1.  Specifically, the majority noted that the primers of the ‘723 patent have identical nucleotide sequences as naturally occurring DNA, just like the primers in BRCA1.  The majority rejected Roche’s argument that its synthetic primers differed from those in the naturally-occurring gene based on the presence of a 3-prime end and 3-prime hydroxyl group, noting that the “same argument was made in BRCA1.”

Concurring Opinion

Although Judge O’Malley agreed with the majority that BRCA1 compelled the conclusion that the claims of the ‘723 patent are not patent-eligible subject matter, she wrote separately to express her further view that the Federal Circuit should revisit en banc the holding in BRCA1 at least with respect to Roche’s primer claims.  BRCA1 involved an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction motion brought early in that case.  Judge O’Malley noted that the record in BRCA1 was underdeveloped and the Federal Circuit in BRCA1 did not have the benefit of certain arguments and evidence, such as those presented by Roche, which could support a finding that the primer claims are patent eligible.  For example, Roche demonstrated the ways in which the claimed primers may differ structurally from anything that occurs in nature.

Judge O’Malley also distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).  In particular, unlike the claims in Myriad, which were neither “expressed in terms of chemical composition, nor” reliant “in any way on the chemical changes that result from the isolation of a particular section of DNA,” the primer claims in the ’723 patent are expressed in terms of chemical composition and are reliant on the presence of a 3-prime end and a 3-prime hydroxyl group at a nonnaturally occurring location.

Takeaway

Some of the alleged modifications that Judge O’Malley suggests might render Roche’s primers patent eligible and could save other patent claims directed to synthetic DNA.  If the full court agrees with Judge O’Malley’s suggestion to revisit BRCA1, this may strengthen patent protection for other biotech inventions.

 

© Copyright 2018 Brinks, Gilson & Lione

Supreme Court to Consider Case on Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions

Michael Best Logo

On December 6, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a case concerning the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions. The Court will review a split decision issued by the en banc Federal Circuit in May 2013. In that decision, seven of 10 judges concluded Alice Corporation’s claims to computer-based methods for minimizing settlement risk in financial transactions, as well as claims to computer-readable media containing program code for performing such methods, constituted patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101. The judges split evenly, however, regarding the patent eligibility of Alice’s remaining claims to computerized systems for performing such transactions. Given the stark differences of opinion expressed by members of the Federal Circuit, it was widely predicted that the Supreme Court would step in to settle the dispute. The Court’s decision could have significant implications for the computer hardware and software industries, as well as for patent eligibility standards in general.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in early 2014, and a decision is expected by the end of the term in June 2014. The case number is 13-298.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP