Broad antibody claims under attack – USPTO issues memorandum raising written description requirements

Upon discovery of a novel biological target, an applicant may attempt to patent antibodies directed to the target, as such antibodies may have diagnostic and/or therapeutic applications. In the past, it has been possible to claim such antibodies in the US by merely stating that they are capable of binding the new biological target, and

Is the term of your US patent critical? If so, you may want to carefully consider how the US patent is prosecuted in order to maximize Patent Term Adjustment. Here’s how…

One of the many differences between Australian patent law and US patent law is the term of a patent.  In Australia, the term of a patent runs for a fixed 20 years from the filing date.  However, an extension of up to 5 years is available for certain standard patents relating to pharmaceutical substances.  Whilst

USPTO teaches how to circumvent Myriad and Prometheus

The USPTO has provided updated guidance in relation to patent eligibility of inventions involving natural products and principles in view of the Myriad and Prometheus decisions. The updated guidance provides a number of new examples specifically relating to the patent eligibility of subject matter such as vaccines, diagnostic methods and genetic screening.   Vaccine/composition claims

The USPTO takes the law into its own hands

On the basis of the US Supreme Court landmark Myriad and Prometheus decisions, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently, without any public consultation, issued new guidelines for determining patent eligibility of claims reciting or involving “laws of nature, natural phenomena and natural products”. Significantly, the guidelines appear to extend beyond the scope

Can patents on diagnostic tests survive in the US?

In March 2012 it was controversially held by the US Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc. (2012) that a “relationship” between the concentrations of blood metabolites and response to a therapeutic drug, claimed in patents owned by Prometheus Laboratories Inc was not patentable because it represented a “principle of nature”. The Court stated