patentable subject matter in biotechnology
Post on 22-Apr-2015
871 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. ©2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 1
Patentable Subject Matter in Biotechnology
October 19, 2012
Kerry Taylor
Tokyo
The recipient may only view this work. No other right or license is granted.
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 2
Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs.
Background:
• 6-MP (6-mercaptopurine) drugs were previously known, were known to treat the claimed disease, and were known to metabolize to 6-thioguanine (6-TG).
• 6-MP drugs are metabolized to 6-TG by individuals at different rates, and different metabolic rates led to efficacy and toxicity concerns.
• Prior art suggested that an individual patient’s concentration of metabolites could predict clinical efficacy and toxicity in that individual.
• Inventors discovered the level at which concentration of the metabolite correlated with efficacy and toxicity
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 3
Prometheus – Representative Claim
1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of [a specific] disorder, comprising: (a) administering a drug providing 6-TG to a subject having said … disorder; and (b) determining the level of 6-TG in said subject having said … disorder, wherein the level of 6-TG less than about 230 [units] indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and wherein the level of 6-TG greater than about 400 [units] indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject.
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 4
Prometheus – Analyzing the Claims
• Administering step
– Limits claim scope to a particular environment or
audience
• Determining step
– Not specific; tells doctors to determine the level of
metabolites using any (current or future) process
– Routine and conventional activity
• Wherein clause
– Recitation of the natural law / natural phenomenon
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 5
Prometheus Opinion – Holding
• Claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101
• The administering and detecting steps are not sufficient to transform correlations into specific patentable applications
• “Transformation” alone is not sufficient
– In “stating that the ‘machine-or-transformation’ test is an ‘important and useful clue’ …, we have neither said nor implied that the test trumps the ‘law of nature’ exclusion.”
• Limiting claims to a particular technological field is not the same as reciting a specific application and is insufficient
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 6
Prometheus Opinion – Application of Precedent
• Compare:
– “It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. … The “novelty” of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” (Diehr)
– “[Diehr] nowhere suggested that all these steps…were in context obvious, already in use, or purely conventional. …--they transformed the process into an inventive application of the formula.” (Prometheus)
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 7
Association for Molecular Pathology v USPTO (“Myriad”)
Isolated DNA Claims
• An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
Method Claims
• A method for detecting a germline alteration in a BRCA1 gene . . . which comprises analyzing a sequence of a BRCA1 gene or BRCA1 RNA from a human sample or analyzing a sequence of BRCA1 cDNA made from mRNA from said human sample . . .
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 8
Association for Molecular Pathology v USPTO (“Myriad”)
Method Claims
• A method for screening a tumor sample from a human subject for a somatic alteration in a BRCA1 gene in said tumor which comprises . . . comparing a first sequence . . . made from mRNA from said tumor sample with a second sequence . . . .
• A method for screening potential cancer therapeutics which comprises: growing a trans-formed eukaryotic host cell containing an altered BRCA1 gene . . . , growing said transformed eukaryotic host cell in the absence of said compound, determining the rate of growth . . . , wherein a slower rate of growth of said host cell in the presence of said compound is indicative of a cancer therapeutic.
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 9
Myriad – Panel Decision
• Fractured Three Judge Panel
• One Judge Concurring-in-Part, One Judge Dissenting-In-Part
• “[T]he [isolated DNA] claims are drawn to patentable subject matter because the claims cover molecules that are markedly different—have a distinctive chemical identity and nature—from those found in nature.”
• The method claims that recite only “‘comparing’ or ‘analyzing’ two gene sequences fall outside the scope of §101 because they claim only abstract mental processes.”
• The method claims for screening potential cancer therapeutics satisfies§101 because the “growing” step is transformative and does more than simply apply a law of nature.
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 10
Myriad – What’s Next?
This case is still going through the courts, but the Supreme Court is likely to take it up for consideration
©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. ©2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 11
Strategies for Chemical and
Biotechnology Inventions
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 12
Claim Drafting Strategies
• Will modifying the claim to satisfy§101 raise other issues?
– Is the claim still useful against your competitor(s)?
– Will the claim raise issues of “divided infringement”?
– Will the claim embrace the prior art?
– Will the claim permit an Examiner to shift the burden in prosecution?
• Who is your audience?
– USPTO, Federal Circuit and Supreme Court may apply different standards.
– How likely are you to enforce your rights in court?
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 13
Would This Claim Satisfy§101?
1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of [a
specific] disorder, comprising:
(a) administering a drug providing 6-TG to a subject having said …
disorder;
(b) determining the level of 6-TG in said subject having said …
disorder,
wherein the level of 6-TG less than about 230 [units]
indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug
subsequently administered to said subject, and
wherein the level of 6-TG greater than about 400 [units]
indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug
subsequently administered to said subject; and
(c) administering an increased or decreased amount of said drug
as indicated by said level of 6-TG.
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 14
Would This Claim Satisfy§101?
1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for
treatment of [a specific] disorder, comprising:
administering a first amount of a drug providing 6-TG to a patient in need thereof,
administering an increased amount of said drug to the patient when an amount of 6-TG in the patient’s blood is less than 230 [units], and
administering a decreased amount of said drug to the patient when an amount of 6-TG in the patient’s blood is greater than 400 [units].
15 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Would This Claim Satisfy§101?
1. A method of detecting cancer X comprising:
obtaining a tissue sample from a patient at risk of cancer X; and
measuring/detecting the level of marker Y in said sample,
wherein the presence of marker Y indicates the presence of cancer X.
16 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Would This Claim Satisfy§101?
1. A method of treating cancer X, comprising:
obtaining a tissue sample from a patient at risk of cancer X;
measuring/detecting the level of marker Y in said sample; and
administering treatment Z to said patient when marker Y is present in said sample.
17 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Hypothetical – Effect on Biotechnology
• Compound X is naturally present in dandelion wine,
and acts as anti-cancer agent
• Researchers have successfully isolated compound X
from the dandelion wine
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 18
Would These Claims Satisfy § 101?
1. Isolated, purified compound X.
2. An orally-administered capsule comprising:
isolated, purified compound X, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
3. A method of treating cancer comprising:
administering the compound X to a patient in need thereof.
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 19
Kerry Taylor 12790 El Camino Real
San Diego, California 92130
Kerry.Taylor@knobbe.com
top related