By now you’ve heard that the Federal Circuit has rejected the finding by the Southern District of New York Court in Myriad that could have rendered invalid all patents claiming isolated forms of naturally occurring DNA molecules. Specifically, the Supreme Court has drawn a line between compositions that, even if combined or altered in a manner not found in nature, have similar characteristics as in nature, and compositions that human intervention has given “markedly different” or “distinctive” characteristics. The opinion concludes that the claimed DNA molecules meet this test.
Attorney Kevin E. Noonan, PhD, of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, notes that the Federal Circuit rendered a “fractured” decision in the case. That means it will likely end up at the Supreme Court, and also leaves plenty of open questions and room for interpretation in the meantime. What does it all mean for TTOs and university researchers with gene-based innovations, in terms of both patenting and licensing?
Join Mr. Noonan for a one-hour webinar that will deeply analyze the Court’s decision and discuss how the “fractured” opinion affects your university and its relevant IP. He’ll discuss :
- Patentability of composition of matter claims (where the Court reversed the District Court’s finding that “isolated DNA” was not patent-eligible under the “products of nature” exception)
- Impact on method claims – both diagnostic methods and screening method claims
- The decision’s creation of a new categorical rule of patent-ineligibility
- Rejection of the “magic microscope” analysis by the government
- Likely outcome of future appeals
- Impact on patent prosecution decisions and claim drafting
- “isolation” vs. “purification” – what’s the difference?
Your Expert Presenter:
Kevin E. Noonan, PhD, is a Partner with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP and has extensive experience in biotechnology and the chemical arts. Dr. Noonan brings more than 10 years of experience as a molecular biologist working on high-technology problems to his legal work. He has wide experience in all aspects of patent prosecution, interferences, litigation, and client counseling on validity, infringement, and patenting strategy matters. He represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies both large and small, and he is particularly experienced in representing university clients in both patent prosecution and licensing.