The Federal Circuit’s discouraging opinion in Ariosa v. Sequenom has been discussed in previous posts. Sequenom has petitioned for en banc rehearing, its brief is available here, Amicus briefs are due tomorrow, Aug 27, but WARF got its in a bit early, and it is available here.
Here is a summary of WARF’s argument, i.e., their argument as set forth in the Table of Contents:
- The goal of the two-step Mayo/Alice framework is to ensure that patentees cannot effectively monopolize natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract ideas—no more and no less
- Where an inventor claims only an application that makes practical use of a natural phenomenon, the claims do not monopolize the natural phenomenon itself and are patent-eligible under Section 101
- The panel’s analysis of Mayo/Alice Step Two was mistaken because isolation, amplification, and analysis of cffDNA in maternal fluids were not conventional
More briefs will be posted shortly, including one I am helping to prepare for Biotechnology Industry Organization