Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook


 


 

US court refuses Sequenom appeal for prenatal test patent

07 December 2015

By Antony Blackburn-Starza

Appeared in BioNews 831

The US federal court of appeals has declined to rehear arguments on the patentability of a prenatal blood test, saying that it remains bound by the Supreme Court to determine the claims as non-patentable.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last June that Sequenom's prenatal MaterniT21 test was not patentable (see BioNews 807), upholding a lower court decision on the matter.

It said that the method of detecting fetal DNA in maternal blood to test for abnormalities was not patentable under the Supreme Court's test set out in the case of Mayo in 2012, which excluded natural phenomena and 'abstract ideas', like mathematical formulae and drug metabolites in the blood, from patent protection.

In Mayo, the US Supreme Court set out the relevant test of patentability as being, first, to decide if the subject of the patent is a mere discovery of natural phenomena (non-patentable) or an abstract idea arising out of a discovery (patentable). The second step is to consider whether there has been an 'inventive concept' which has transformed the abstract idea into a patentable invention.

Applying this test with some dissatisfaction, the Court of Appeals said in June that Sequenom's patent related to a discovery of inherited cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood, which was a 'natural phenomenon'. Furthermore, the methods used in the test were 'well-understood, conventional and routine', and not sufficiently 'inventive'.

Refusing to reconsider this decision, the Court of Appeals most recently reiterated that it was bound by Mayo to decide this way, but appeared to agree with concerns that the current law may discourage innovation in the field of diagnostic testing, where methods are often premised on identifying new natural phenomena.

Circuit Judge Alan Lourie, said: 'It is said that the whole category of diagnostic claims is at risk. It is also said that a crisis of patent law and medical innovation may be upon us, and there seems to be some truth in that concern.'

Appearing to distinguish the claims in question from the Myriad decision in 2013, Judge Lourie differentiated patent claims drafted narrowly to be 'application claims', from those which relate to abstract claims, saying that one of the claims in question related to practical uses of performing a specific prenatal diagnosis.

'They recite innovative and practical uses for it, particularly for diagnostic testing: blood typing, sex typing, and screening for genetic abnormalities,' he said. 'Moreover, the claims here are not abstract. There is nothing abstract about performing actual physical steps on a physical material.'

Nevertheless, he added that following Mayo these 'additional steps' would add nothing inventive to the process, despite concluding that it was 'unsound' to have rules that take inventions of this kind out of the realm of patentability.  

Dissenting, Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, believed that such an 'incorrect decision' is not required by the Supreme Court's precedent. 'The new diagnostic method here is novel and unforeseen, and is of profound public benefit,' she said.

Sequenom says the latest decision was 'not unexpected', given that the Court of Appeals had already said it was bound by the decision in Mayo, but added that it was a 'necessary first step' to having the case heard by the Supreme Court.

It also says the ruling will have little impact on its business, pointing out that it has been operating under the invalidity ruling of the District Court since 2013 and that it continues to enforce equivalent patent claims in Europe, Canada, Australia and elsewhere.

SOURCES & REFERENCES
The National Law Review | 03 December 2015
 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | 02 December 2015
 
PR Newswire (press release) | 02 December 2015
 
Reuters | 02 December 2015
 
GenomeWeb | 03 December 2015
 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

27 November 2017 - by Dr Rachel Brown 
The UK Patents Court has ruled that two separate non-invasive prenatal tests infringe patents licensed by the US firm Illumina...
04 July 2016 - by Dr Özge Özkaya 
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by the biotech company Sequenom against a ruling that its prenatal blood test was not patent eligible...
18 January 2016 - by Lone Hørlyck 
A new blood test for Down’s syndrome in high-risk women has been recommended for use on the NHS....

20 July 2015 - by Ceri Durham 
Abnormal results from a non-invasive prenatal test for fetal chromosome abnormality may indicate the presence of previously undetected cancers in some mothers....
22 June 2015 - by Ceri Durham 
A US federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that Sequenom's prenatal MaterniT21 test is not sufficiently 'inventive' to be patentable....
13 April 2015 - by Dr Ainsley Newson and Associate Professor Stacy Carter 
In March, Sequenom revealed that its MaterniT21 non-invasive prenatal test has detected potential cancer in some pregnant women. This is a good thing, right? Women in the prime of their lives receiving information that may catch a cancer early. But, we suggest, it is not this simple. ...
09 March 2015 - by Kirsty Oswald 
US company Sequenom has revealed that its prenatal blood test - MaterniT21 PLUS - has detected potential cancer in at least 40 expectant mothers since its launch three years ago...
24 October 2011 - by Julianna Photopoulos 
A new prenatal test that can detect Down's syndrome by using a sample of the mother's blood was launched in twenty US cities last Monday....

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

CROSSING FRONTIERS

Public Conference
London
8 December 2017

Speakers include

Professor Azim Surani

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge

Sally Cheshire

Professor Guido Pennings

Katherine Littler

Professor Allan Pacey

Dr Sue Avery

Professor Richard Anderson

Dr Elizabeth Garner

Dr Andy Greenfield

Dr Anna Smajdor

Dr Henry Malter

Vivienne Parry

Dr Helen O'Neill

Dr César Palacios-González

Philippa Taylor

Fiona Fox

Sarah Norcross

Sandy Starr


BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation