1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Politics, Health Care, Subject Matter Eligibility, & Patent Preemption Mercedes K. Meyer,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Patent Prosecution June 2013 June 13, 2013.
Advertisements

Patent Eligibility Under Attack Lab Corp., Myriad, Classen & Prometheus: The New World in U.S. Biotech? Mercedes K. Meyer, Ph.D. March 5, 2013.
Metabolite and In Re Bilski: The Pendulum Swings Back Mark Chadurjian Senior Counsel, IBM Software Group 11 April 2008.
Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
Recent Cases on Patentable Subject Matter and Patent Exhaustion Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A. Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes.
Orlando, Florida | Mayo v. Prometheus by:Jon M. Gibbs Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed PA.
Diagnostics: Patent Eligibility and the Industry Perspective
1.  35 U.S.C. § 101: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful.
© 2011 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C. All Rights Reserved. Patenting Biomarkers and Diagnostic Methods Neil P. Shull, Ph.D., J.D. S TERNE,
Mayo – The Bell Tolled or, It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) May 3, 2012 AIPLA Biotechnology Committee Webinar James J. Kelley.
What is Happening to Patent Eligibility and What Can We Do About It? June 24, 2014 Bruce D. Sunstein Denise M. Kettelberger, Ph.D. Sunstein Kann Murphy.
1 1 AIPLA 1 1 American Intellectual Property Law Association Patentable Subject Matter in the US AIPPI-Symposium Zeist 13 March 2013 Raymond E. Farrell.
© 2011 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment in the United States AIPPI 2011 Forum/ExCo Peter.
PATENTABLE SUBJECTS IN THE INTERNET OF THINGS ALICIA SHAH.
11 Post-Bilski Case Law Update Remy Yucel Director, Central Reexamination Unit.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association CURRENT STATE OF 35 USC 101: “USPTO GUIDELINES ON PRODUCTS OF NATURE, LAWS OF NATURE,
More on Section 101 Patent Law Prof. Merges
Bilski: Will It Affect Bioscience Method Claims? Mark T. Skoog, Ph.D. Merchant & Gould MIPLA Biotech/Chemical Law Committee November 2009.
Proteomics and “Orphan” Receptors Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. | 600 Atlantic Avenue | Boston, Massachusetts | | fax | wolfgreenfield.com Recent Developments.
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
1 Biotechnology Partnership Meeting April 17, 2001 James Martinell Senior Level Examiner Technology Center 1600.
John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C. New York “Divided” or “Joint” Infringement.
1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) Gary Jones SPE, Technology Center 1600 (703)
* Statements of fact and opinions expressed are those of the speaker individually and are not the opinion or position of Research In Motion Limited or.
Divided Infringement Patent Law News Flash!
Patent Law Prof. Merges Section 101: Issues in the Life Sciences
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Myriad Guidance for Biotechnology and Chemical Practice Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin and.
Prometheus & Myriad The Future of Diagnostic & Gene Claims Mercedes Meyer, Ph.D. Kevin Noonan, Ph.D.
1 Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples TC1600 Special Program Examiner Julie Burke (571)
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
Myriad & Prometheus The Aftermath & Future Concerns Mercedes Meyer, Ph.D. AIPLA 1.
Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership: Recent Examiner Training and Developments Under 35 USC § 101 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner.
Biotechnology Chemistry Pharmaceutical Partnership Meeting September 8, 2010 D. Benjamin Borson, M.A., J.D., Ph.D. Borson Law Group, PC Copyright, Borson.
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
AIPLA Biotech Committee Annual Meeting 2011 Practice Strategies In View of Recent Case Law Developments Panel – James Kelley, Eli Lilly and Company – Ling.
Public Policy Considerations and Patent Eligible Subject Matter Relating to Diagnostic Inventions Disclaimer: Any views expressed here are offered in order.
Patent Eligible Subject Matter: Where Are We Now? A Presentation to CPTCLA September 23, 2011 Mike Connor Alston & Bird LLP Atlanta | Brussels | Charlotte.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Impact of Myriad Decisions on Patent Eligibility of Biotechnology Inventions in Australia and the US.
© 2011 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
Patenting Challenges for Diagnostic Methods: Patent Eligibility; Divided Infringement October 20, 2011 AIPLA Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. James J. Kelley.
Post-Prometheus Interim Examination Guidelines Daphne Lainson Smart & Biggar AIPLA 1.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
The Myriad Genetics Case Gregory A. (Greg) Castanias Jones Day—Washington, DC September 22,
Patentability of Reach-Through Claims Brian R. Stanton Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600 (703)
Trilateral Project WM4 Report on comparative study on Examination Practice Relating to Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and Haplotypes. Linda S.
1 Demystifying the Examination of Stem Cell-Related Inventions Remy Yucel, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 United States Patent.
Patent Protection of Biotechnological Inventions in China Gesheng Huang Partner Zhongzi Law Office AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 12-14, 2011, San Francisco,
Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU
#ACIPIV ACI’s 9 th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Neal K. Dahiya Senior Counsel – Patent Litigation Bristol-Myers Squibb (Princeton, NJ) Limelight v. Akamai:
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association More Fun with §101 – A Prosecution Perspective for Biotechnology Derived Innovation.
1. 35 USC § 101: Statutory Requirements and Four Categories of Invention August 2015 Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
Mayo v. Prometheus Labs – The Backdrop June 12, 2012 © 2012, all rights reserved.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
Myriad The Future of DNA Claims Mercedes Meyer, Ph.D., JD AIPLA 1.
© 2012 Cooley LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA The content of this packet is an introduction to Cooley LLP’s capabilities.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association THE STATUS OF INDUCEMENT Japan Intellectual Property Association Tokyo Joseph A. Calvaruso.
Introduction The Patentability of Human Genes Is patenting human genes moral? Should it be legal? Should there be international intervention?
A Madness to the Method? The Future of Method Patents After Bilski Brian S. Mudge July 19, 2010.
Korean Intellectual Property Office October 19, 2011 Sunhee Lee, SUGHRUE MION PLLC RECENT CASES IN BIOTECH/PHARM/CHEM & 2011 AMERICA INVENTS ACT.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP AIPLA BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE WEBINAR Leslie McDonell The contents of.
101 & Biotech Mercedes K. Meyer, Ph.D., J.D. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Is this part of a larger patent attack? 1.
The Challenge of Biotech Patent Eligibility in the United States:
ChIPs Global Summit, September 15, 2016
The Mayo-Alice Dogma and Paths to Eligibility for BioPharma
Recent USPTO Developments on Subject Matter Eligibility
Protection of AI Inventions in Japan
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Presentation transcript:

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Politics, Health Care, Subject Matter Eligibility, & Patent Preemption Mercedes K. Meyer, Ph.D. April 2013 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law and practice. These materials reflect only the personal views of the speaker and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and the speaker cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and the speaker. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.

2 2 AIPLA Firm Logo Where do we stand? Method claims – Lab Corp., Classen, Prometheus & Myriad –Personalized medicine Have Akamai and McKesson helped? Composition claims - Gene claims under fire –Gene Claims – Myth v. Fact Politics & Health Care in the U.S.

3 3 AIPLA Firm Logo 35 USC 101 § 101: –Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The Exceptions to Eligibility: –Law of nature (naturally occurring correlates) MPEP § –Algorithm –Abstract idea –AIA § 33 (a). Notwithstanding any other provision or law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism See also MPEP § 2105 and 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off 24 (1987) – multicellular organisms including animals are patent eligible.

4 4 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Treatment Method Claims Status Check

5 5 AIPLA Firm Logo We saw it coming - Lab Corp. Lab Corp.. v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006) Certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted. Claim 13 (still valid): – A method for detecting a deficiency of cobalamin or folate in warm-blooded animals comprising the steps of: assaying a body fluid for an elevated level of total homocysteine; and correlating an elevated level of total homocysteine in said body fluid with a deficiency of cobalamin or folate.

6 6 AIPLA Firm Logo Personalized Medicine Obtain biological sample. Measure biomarker with diagnostic. –Metabolites, single & multiple biomarkers, genes, alleles, polymorphisms Correlate biomarker with therapy. Administer therapy. –The problem was that no therapy had to be administered in the Prometheus claims. THE DIVIDING LINE

7 7 AIPLA Firm Logo Prometheus – Claim 1 USPN 6,355, A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising: –(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and –(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, –wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and –wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently ad ministered to said subject. INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER

8 8 AIPLA Firm Logo USPN 6,638,739 – Classen Immunization Schedule = Patent Eligible 1. A method of immunizing a mammalian subject which comprises: –(I) screening a plurality of immunization schedules, by (a) identifying a first group of mammals and at least a second group of mammals, said mammals being of the same species, the first group of mammals having been immunized with one or more doses of one or more infectious disease-causing organism-associated immunogens according to a first screened immunization schedule, and the second group of mammals having been immunized with one or more doses of one or more infectious disease-causing organism-associated immunogens according to a second screened immunization schedule, each group of mammals having been immunized according to a different immunization schedule, and (b) comparing the effectiveness of said first and second screened immunization schedules…., –(II) immunizing said subject according to a subject immunization schedule, ….

9 9 AIPLA Firm Logo And finally, Myriad All of the method claims except for claim 20 of the USPN ‘282 were patent ineligible. –20. A method for screening potential cancer therapeutics which comprises: growing a transformed eukaryotic host cell containing an altered BRCA1 gene causing cancer in the presence of a compound suspected of being a cancer therapeutic, growing said transformed eukaryotic host cell in the absence of said compound, determining the rate of growth of said host cell in the presence of said compound and the rate of growth of said host cell in the absence of said compound and comparing the growth rate of said host cells, wherein a slower rate of growth of said host cell in the presence of said compound is indicative of a cancer therapeutic. –“…at the heart of claim 20 is a transformed cell, which is made by man, in contrast to a natural material.”

10 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Akamai & McKesson Game Changers?

11 AIPLA Firm Logo The Tension How do you write a method claim that is patentable and enforceable? –The origin of the claims in Prometheus and Lab Corp. was to claim the essential components of the invention that generally only require one actor in order to practice the process. 35 USC § 271 (b) for induced infringement is difficult to prove. Direct infringement under § 271 (a) is easier to prove. –Claims were written for proving direct infringement.

12 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Myriad – DNA Claims

13 AIPLA Firm Logo Myriad The Question: “Are human genes patentable?” April 15, 2013 S. Ct. hearing Claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a eligibility determination under § 101

14 AIPLA Firm Logo Myriad: USPN 5,747, An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2. Gene? 2. The isolated DNA of claim 1, wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1. cDNA? 5. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 1. Fragment of a gene? 6. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 2. Fragment of a cDNA? 7. An isolated DNA selected from the group consisting of: –(a) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 having T at nucleotide position 4056; –(b) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 having an extra C at nucleotide position 5385; –(c) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 having G at nucleotide position 5443; and, (d) a DNA having the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 having 11 base pairs at nucleotide positions deleted. cDNA variants?

15 AIPLA Firm Logo Politics: Sec. 27 of AIA SEC. 27. STUDY ON GENETIC TESTING. (a) IN GENERAL.--The Director shall conduct a study on effective ways to provide independent, confirming genetic diagnostic test activity where gene patents and exclusive licensing for primary genetic diagnostic tests exist. (b) ITEMS INCLUDED IN STUDY.--The study shall include an examination of at least the following: –(1) The impact that the current lack of independent second opinion testing has had on the ability to provide the highest level of medical care to patients and recipients of genetic diagnostic testing, and on inhibiting innovation to existing testing and diagnoses. –(2) The effect that providing independent second opinion genetic diagnostic testing would have on the existing patent and license holders of an exclusive genetic test. –(3) The impact that current exclusive licensing and patents on genetic testing activity has on the practice of medicine, including but not limited to: the interpretation of testing results and performance of testing procedures. –(4) The role that cost and insurance coverage have on access to and provision of genetic diagnostic tests. Results 9 months after enactment – June 2012 No study results

16 AIPLA Firm Logo Thanks for your attention! Questions? Mercedes K. Meyer, Ph.D., J.D. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC

17 AIPLA Firm Logo Prometheus – Claim 1 USPN 6,680, A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising: –(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and –(b) determining a level of 6-thioguanine or 6-methyl-mercaptopurine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, –wherein a level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and wherein a level of 6- thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells or a level of 6-methyl-mercaptopurine greater than about 7000 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject. INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER

18 AIPLA Firm Logo Rewriting Claim 1 from the ‘623 Patent Perhaps a patentable alternative? –A method of administering 6-thiopurine to a patient in need thereof for treating an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising the step of administering a therapeutically effective amount of the drug that produces a level of 6-thiopurine no less than 230 pmol and no more than 400 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells in blood from the patient.

19 AIPLA Firm Logo USPN 5,783,283 – Classen Patent Ineligible 1. A method of determining whether an immunization schedule affects the incidence or severity of a chronic immune-mediated disorder in a treatment group of mammals, relative to a control group of mammals, which comprises immunizing mammals in the treatment group of mammals with one or more doses of one or more immunogens, according to said immunization schedule, and comparing the incidence, prevalence, frequency or severity of said chronic immune-mediated disorder or the level of a marker of such a disorder, in the treatment group, with that in the control group.

20 AIPLA Firm Logo Resources –Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012); McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) –Ass’n for Mol. Path. et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) –Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) –Coliainni et al., “Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing and carrier screening for Tay-Sachs and Canavan disease.” Genet. Med. 12(4 Suppl): S5-S14 (2010) available at: –HHS Draft Report on Gene Patents: pdf pdf –HHS Report on Access to Medical Testing: –Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006) –Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) –Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct (2012) –MPEP: –Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests.” 74 F.R –Recent Examiner Training and Developments Under 35 USC §101 (Sep. 5, 2012): –Smartgene Inc. v. Advanced Biological Lab., SA (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2012) Case 1:08-cv BAH – claims found ineligible in view of Prometheus.