The Federal Circuit has denied the petition for rehearing en banc in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., despite the filing of twelve amicus briefs in support of the petition, including briefs filed by Biotechnology Industry Organization and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, numerous innovator companies in the diagnostic space, and law professors. The en banc order was accompanied by concurring opinions authored by Judge Lourie (joined by Judge Moore) and Judge Dyk, and a dissenting opinion authored by Judge Newman.
The panel decision is discussed in this article.
Disclaimer
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.
Author(s)
Related Insights
26 July 2024
Foley In Fashion
Passing the Torch: Technology in the Opening Ceremony Fashion at the Paris Olympics
With the 2024 Olympic Games set in Paris, France, one of the world’s fashion capitals, athletics and aesthetics collide to take center stage at the much-anticipated opening ceremony.
25 July 2024
Foley In Fashion
SHEIN’s $1.9 Million Data Breach: A Cautionary Tale for Online Fashion Brands
The New York Attorney General fined fast-fashion company, Shein Distribution Corporation, $1.9 million for failing to properly handle a data breach in late 2022.
25 July 2024
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Unlocking the Power of Equity-Based Incentive Compensation: Basics of Nonqualified Stock Options and Stock-Settled Stock Appreciation Rights for Employers in the Manufacturing Industry
This article is the second in our series on equity-based compensation intended to assist employers with answering a common question: What type of equity compensation award is best for our company and our employees?