March 25, 2019
Authored and Edited by Ruohan (Jack) Li; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Natural Alternatives Int’l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, No. 2018-1295 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that claims in this case reciting methods of treatment were not directed to a natural law as the particular claims in this case require specific and unconventional dosage of a natural substance.
Natural Alternatives asserted several patents related to using a natural substance to “increase[e] the anaerobic working capacity of muscle and other tissues.” Creative Compounds moved for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that the asserted claims were directed to a natural law and were thus patent ineligible under Section 101. The district court granted Creative Compounds’ motion.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed. The panel found that, under Natural Alternatives’ proposed claim construction, the claims-at-issue embody not only the benefit of natural substances, but also actual administration of the substances in the specific dosage and manner claimed. As such, the claims in this case are treatment claims and are patent eligible. In addition, the panel held that the district court erroneously granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings under Section 101, when there was no basis to conclude that the claimed methods of treatment in this case were well-understood, routine, and conventional under step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis.
Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the panel’s decision to remand the case, but disagreed with the claim construction that the panel used, suggesting that the district court in this case should have independently construed the claimed methods of treatment before deciding Section 101 issues at the pleading stage.
Copyright © 2019 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
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.