March 23, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 2019-1419 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,580,751 (“the ’751 patent”) and 9,738,931 (“the ’931 patent”) were directed to patent-eligible subject matter and were not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The claims of the ’751 and ’931 patents are directed to methods of preparing a fraction of cell-free DNA that is enriched in fetal DNA. Illumina filed suit against Ariosa alleging infringement of the ’751 and ’931 patents. Ariosa moved for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Ariosa’s summary judgment motion, holding that the claims of the ’751 and ’931 patents were directed to ineligible subject matter.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court began by noting that “[t]his is not a diagnostic case. And it is not a method of treatment case. It is a method of preparation case.” Applying step one of the Alice/Mayo test, the Court considered whether the claims were “directed to” the natural phenomenon that cell-free fetal DNA tends to be shorter than cell-free maternal DNA in a mother’s bloodstream. The majority held that the claims were not directed to a natural phenomenon, but rather, to a patent-eligible method that “exploit[s] that discovery in a method for preparation of a mixture enriched in fetal DNA.” Thus, the majority held that the claims were not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Judge Reyna dissented, arguing that the claims are directed to a natural phenomenon and that the method steps are routine, conventional steps that are not sufficient to yield patent eligible subject matter.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.