直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Finds Patent Eligibility of “Method of Preparation” Claims

March 23, 2020

Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Caitlin E. Fowler; 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.

Tags

patentable subject matter, 35 U.S.C. § 101

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Kathryn R. Judson
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6466
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

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. 

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP