Fitzpatrick | June 2015
FORWARD
CONTACT US
VISIT OUR WEBSITE
Case Alerts
DOWNLOAD PDF
June 12, 2015
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.: Federal Circuit Finds Not Patent
Eligible Claims for Detecting Paternally Inherited Nucleic Acid
On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion holding that claims directed to a
method of detecting paternally inherited cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) in maternal plasma
or serum are not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ariosa Diagnostics,
Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., Nos. 2014-1139, 2014-1144 (June 12, 2015).
The opinion for the Court was written by Judge Reyna, who was joined by Judge Wallach;
Judge Linn wrote a concurring opinion. The underlying subject matter related to a method
of amplifying and detecting paternal cffDNA, which is cell-free fetal DNA found in maternal
plasma or serum. Detection is useful to determine fetal characteristics, such as gender.
Thus for example, claim 1 was directed to a detection method that comprised the steps of
amplifying a paternally inherited nucleic acid from a serum or plasma sample and detecting
the presence of the nucleic acid in the sample.
The Court evaluated the patent eligibility of the claims using the two-part test set forth in
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1289
(2012). The Court first noted that it was undisputed that the existence of cffDNA in
maternal blood was a natural phenomenon. It further noted that the method at issue
started with cffDNA taken from a sample of maternal plasma or serum, a natural
phenomenon, and ended with paternally inherited cffDNA, also a natural phenomenon.
Thus, the Court found the claims to be directed to a naturally occurring phenomenon. In
support of this conclusion, the Court noted that the patent’s description of the invention
itself stated that the inventors “have demonstrated that foetal DNA is present in maternal
plasma and serum,” which “may be a useful source of material” for diagnosis.
Having found the claims directed to a natural phenomenon, the Court then held that the
additional process steps in the claims merely employed conventional methods, which
applicant admitted were “a matter of routine for one skilled in the art.” Although the Court
acknowledged that the claimed methods were a significant contribution to science, the
Court concluded that the claims were not patent eligible because they simply applied
conventional steps to detect a naturally occurring phenomenon. Even a positive and
valuable contribution to science, the Court noted, can fall short of being statutory subject
matter.
The Court also addressed the issue of preemption, stating that simply demonstrating the
lack of complete preemption by pointing to alternative methods of using a natural
phenomenon at the center of a patent claim does not render the claims patent eligible.
Judge Linn concurred in the opinion, stating that he was bound by the “sweeping language”
of the Mayo two-part test, noting that the Supreme Court’s dismissal in Mayo of
conventional post-solution steps left no room to distinguish between instances where
claimed conventional steps were already being performed and those where they were
not—such as this case.
About Fitzpatrick:
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto has grown to nearly 150 attorneys practicing all areas of
intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition, and
trade secrets. Our practice covers the spectrum of intellectual property services, including
applying for patent and trademark protection, litigation, appeals, interferences, post-grant
patent challenges (e.g., IPRs), alternative dispute resolution, licensing, opinions, corporate
transactions and due diligence. We have one of the premier patent litigation practices in the
nation, and we also prosecute more than twice as many patents as any other New Yorkbased firm.
Robert H. Fischer
[email protected]
Partner
Sean L. Hyberg
[email protected]
Associate
Latest News
Fitzpatrick Recognized In The 2015 Midsize Hot List
The National Law Journal | May 2015
Fitzpatrick's Post-Grant HQ - The Authoritative Resource For All Things Post-Grant | April
2015
Fitzpatrick Successfully Defends Ophthalmic Antibiotic Patents On Behalf Of Akorn, Pfizer
And InSite Vision
Fed. Cir. (2015) | April 2015
Read More News
New York
1290 Avenue of the
Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
212.218.2100
Washington
975 F Street, NW
Washington, DC
20004-1462
202.530.1010
California
650 Town Center Drive,
Suite 1600
Costa Mesa, CA
92626-7130
© Copyright 2015 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto.
All Rights Reserved.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Join us
Disclaimer