No. 20-892

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Illumina, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-05
Status: Dismissed
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: and analyzing the separated DNA for diagnostic pu using well-known laboratory techniques is unpaten 35-usc-101 abstract-ideas diagnostic diagnostic-method dna dna-analysis dna-fragments laboratory-techniques myriad-decision myriad-doctrine natural-phenomena patent patent-eligibility section-101
Key Terms:
Patent
Latest Conference: 2021-05-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a patent that claims nothing more than a method for separating smaller DNA fragments from larger ones, and analyzing the separated DNA for diagnostic purposes, using well-known laboratory techniques is unpatentable under Section 101 and Myriad

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 101 of Title 35 provides that a patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” This Court has “long held,” however, that Section 101 “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013) (brackets omitted). The Myriad Court applied this rule in holding that “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,’ and further explained that “separating [a] gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.” Jd. at 580, 591. The question presented is: Whether a patent that claims nothing more than a method for separating smaller DNA fragments from larger ones, and analyzing the separated DNA for diagnostic purposes, using well-known laboratory techniques is unpatentable under Section 101 and Myriad. @

Docket Entries

2021-05-21
Joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 46.1 filed.
2021-05-21
Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
2021-05-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.
2021-05-04
Reply of petitioners Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-04-19
Brief of respondents Illumina, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
2021-02-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 19, 2021.
2021-02-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 18, 2021 to April 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-16
Response Requested. (Due March 18, 2021)
2021-02-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
2021-02-03
Waiver of right of respondent Illumina, Inc., et al. to respond filed.
2020-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2021)

Attorneys

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al.
Daralyn Jeannine DurieDurie Tangri LLP, Petitioner
Daralyn Jeannine DurieDurie Tangri LLP, Petitioner
Illumina, Inc., et al.
Edward R. ReinesWeil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Respondent
Edward R. ReinesWeil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Respondent