New USPTO Guidance On Patent Eligibility Of Diagnostic Methods

09 May 2016 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

The patent eligibility examples published by the USPTO on May 5, 2016 include two new examples relating to diagnostic methods and two new examples relating to “nature-based” products. This article will consider the diagnostic methods examples and ask whether they are consistent with recent Federal Circuit decisions, or whether the USPTO is taking a stand against the court’s recent decisions invalidating diagnostic method patents.

Diagnostic Methods Examples

The new examples add Examples 28-33 to the USPTO’s body of patent eligibility examples, of which Examples 29 and 31 relate to diagnostic methods.

Example 29 relates to the diagnosis and treatment of a fictitious disease called “julitis” by detecting a newly identified protein marker. Out of the seven sample claims, six are said to be “eligible” and one is said to be “ineligible.” Themes that emerge from this example include:

  • a method of detecting a newly identified protein marker satisfies § 101 even if the method is recited at a high level of generality {Claim 1}
  • a method of diagnosing a disease by detecting a newly identified protein marker does not satisfy § 101 when the detection steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., adding a “diagnosing …” step to a patent-eligible method of detecting claim will render the claim ineligible {Claim 2}
  • a method of diagnosing a disease by detecting a newly identified protein marker satisfies § 101 if the claim recites the use of agents (e.g., antibodies) that are novel or at least are not “well-understood, routine and conventional” {Claim 3, Claim 4}
  • a personalized medicine method of diagnosing and treating a disease that involves detecting a newly identified protein marker satisfies § 101 even if the detection method is recited at a high level of generality and the recited treatment is a conventional treatment for the condition {Claim 5, Claim 6}
  • a method of treating a disease satisfies § 101 {Claim 7}
    (That should go without saying, but certain district courts may need this reminder!)

Example 31 relates to screening for genetic markers, and is based loosely on the claims of Myriad’s U.S. Patent 5,753,441. Out of the five sample claims, four are said to be “eligible” and one is said to be “ineligibile.” The “ineligible” claim mirrors the claim that was invalidated by the Federal Circuit under the “abstract idea” paradigm. Themes that emerge from this example include:

  • a screening method claim based on “comparing” sequences does not satisfy § 101 when the comparison is recited at a high level of generality such that it could read on a mental process {Claim 1 }
  • a screening method claim satisfies § 101 if the claim recites the use of a technique that is not “well-understood, routine and conventional” {Claim 70, Claim 75, Claim 80, Claim 85}

I am hesitant to draw broader conclusions from the examples, because that would assume a level of reason that may still be lacking. For example, I would like to conclude that the USPTO believes that a method of detecting a newly identified genetic marker satisfies § 101 if the method is recited at a high level of generality as long as it is does not read on a mental process, but it did not include a claim similar to Claim 2 of Example 29 in the set of claims for Example 31.

Comparison To Federal Circuit Decisions

I find it difficult to reconcile the USPTO’s detection method examples with recent Federal Circuit decisions including Ambry, Sequenom, and GTGbut maybe that’s the point. The USPTO cites the following passage from Mayo in support of the “eligible” detecting claims:

[Each claim] recites an “administering” step, a “determining” step, and a “wherein” step. These additional steps are not themselves natural laws ….

Perhaps the Federal Circuit lost track of this Supreme Court guidance when it determined that claim 1 of Sequenom’s U.S. Patent 6,258,540 “begins and ends with a natural phenomenon” and is invalid as being “directed to matter that is naturally occurring.” Although some claims at issue in Sequenom recited a diagnosis step, claim 1 was focused on “detecting the presence of a paternally inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin” in “a maternal serum or plasma sample from a pregnant female.”

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights

Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.