Links for Supreme Court Decisions

By Eugene T. Perez

Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. (June 2013): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf (Reversal of CAFC where a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring).

Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (March 2012): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf (Prometheus’ process is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; “Because the laws of nature recited by Prometheus’ patent claims—the relationships between concentrations of certain metabo­lites in the blood and the likelihood that a thiopurine drug dosage will prove ineffective or cause harm—are not themselves patentable, the claimed processes are not patentable unless they have additional features that provide practical assurance that the processes are genu­ine applications of those laws rather than drafting efforts designed to monopolize the correlations.”)

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al. (June 2014): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf (“Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, they are not patent eligible under §101.”; claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: the abstract idea of intermediated settlement.)

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (June 2014): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-369_1idf.pdf (“A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”) (“The Federal Circuit’s standard, which tolerates some ambiguous claims but not others, does not satisfy the statute’s definiteness requirement.”; Federal Circuit holding of the standard for definiteness being that the claim is “amenable to construction” and not “insolubly ambiguous is reversed).

Limelight Networks, Inc. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al. (June 2014): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-786_664d.pdf (“A defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under §271(b) when no one has directly infringed under §271(a) or any other statu­tory provision.”)