Tag Archives: patent

PTO Patent Examinations in the wake of Mayo and Myriad

stopped-media-115x76

Biotech patent applicants are finding themselves in uncharted waters.   After the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Svs. v. Prometheus Labs and Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, companies have been trying to understand how these decisions will impact the industry. A recent study supported by BIO, in collaboration with Bloomberg BNA and the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi analyzed how Mayo and Myriad have changed patent eligibility for biotechnology. Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BIO Submits Comments on “Myriad” PTO Patent Guidance

Supreme Court - Phil Roeder

On July 31st, BIO, alongside a group of international bioindustry trade associations submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding their March 4, 2014 Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. Representing associations from Japan, Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal Belgium, the Netherlands and others, the comments reflect a deep concern among the international community regarding how the PTO is interpreting the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court Decision on Web Content Delivery to Impact Biotech Patents

Zuhn

Earlier this month, in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court issued a decision that will likely impact patents directed to methods for treating or diagnosing diseases.  In Limelight Networks, the Court reversed the appellate court’s finding that Limelight had infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703, which is assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is exclusively licensed to Akamai Technologies.  In particular, the Court determined that a defendant is not liable Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , ,

Nautilus v. Biosig, Baxter v. Fresenius and Limelight v. Akamai

Supreme Court

BIO weighed in on three Supreme Court cases in the last few months whose outcome could change the IP landscape for biotechnology companies. BIO’s amicus brief in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments argues that the petitioner misrepresents the Federal Circuit’s definiteness test and seeks to litigate an issue not properly before this court.  Petitioner’s approach radically departs from established law and practice.  Finally the petitioner’s approach would destabilize the patent system as it would inject substantial Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Corporate-Sponsored University Research Valuable for Further Innovation

SBIR Reauthorization Moves Forward

New research published in Nature, Technology Transfer: Industry-funded academic inventions boost innovation, provides data undermining “assumptions that corporate-funded academic research is less accessible and useful to others.” After reviewing empirical evidence covering 20 years of inventions in the University of California system the authors find that: “Corporate-sponsored research is surprisingly valuable for further innovation. Data collected over 20 years at nine campuses and three national laboratories administered by the University of California show that corporate-sponsored Read More >

Patently BIOtech  |  Leave a comment  |  Email This Post
Tags: , , , , , ,