Australia Holds The Line On Patent Eligibility Of Diagnostic Methods

In a decision underscoring that the U.S. stands (nearly) alone in holding most diagnostic methods to be not eligible for patenting, the Federal Court of Australia upheld Sequenom’s Australian patent directed to prenatal diagnostic methods that involve detecting fetal DNA in maternal blood samples. Those working to reform U.S. patent eligibility law might want to consult this decision for guidance.

The Australian Court Decision

The Australian court rejected arguments based on U.S. patent eligibility law, which it criticized for being based on a “dissection of the claims into their constituent parts,” which the court noted “has no place under Australian law.”

Contrary to the Federal Circuit’s view of the corresponding U.S. claims, the Australian court explained its patent eligibility finding as follows:

The Patent does not simply claim the discovery of cffDNA in maternal blood. Rather, it claims a new and inventive practical application of the discovery comprising a method requiring human action to detect, in an artificially created sample of maternal plasma or serum, a DNA sequence as being of fetal rather than maternal origin. And prior to the invention, no-one had worked or was working a method comprising the detection of cffDNA in plasma or serum samples extracted from pregnant females.

You can read more about the Australian court decision in this article by Hedie Meka of Eagar & Associates, whom I thank for bringing this decision to my attention.

Patent Eligibility In The U.S.

Two points in the Australian court decision could be useful touchstones for reforming U.S. patent eligibility law. First, requiring that claims be evaluated as a whole—and not parsed into (i) clauses reciting a “judicial exception” and (ii) other clauses—could go far towards solving the current patent eligibility crisis for diagnostic methods. More broadly, holding that a diagnostic method is a “practical application” of a newly discovered natural correlation might restore the patent eligibility of diagnostic methods to pre-Mayo status.

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.