As promised in my earlier post, today our firm issued its review of the much anticipated decision regarding the “gene patenting” case (formally known as The Association For Molecular Pathology. et al. v. USPTO et al.) The case was before the Federal Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 20, 2012 decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus, Inc. The same three-judge panel heard the case on remand, and the judges reached essentially the same results on the interpretation of the patent-eligibility of claims under 35 USC § 101 as their earlier decision on the issues. Judge Lourie wrote the opinion for the court, Judge Moore concurred in the result, and Judge Bryson concurred in part and dissented in part. Read Foley & Lardner’s review and analysis here and Courtenay Brinckerhoff’s PharmaPatents post.
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.
28 November 2023 Busted
Recap of Season 1 + Introduction to Season 2
In this episode, hosts Michael Thomas and Drew Howell recap season 1 of Busted, all about the trusted employee.
28 November 2023 Health Care Law Today
Remote Patient Monitoring: OIG Issues Consumer Alert
On November 22, 2023, the Office of Inspector General posted a consumer alert warning the public about a fraud scheme involving monthly billing for remote patient monitoring.
27 November 2023 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
The Holidays Have Us Thinking About FAMLI
It is already that time of the year — year-end holidays, good food, colder weather, and the opportunity to assess new laws that are set to go into effect at the start of the next calendar year.