Lessons for Australian businesses filing US diagnostic patent applications

Search for a command to run...

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.
When you think of McDonald’s, you probably picture Big Macs and golden arches. But from a corporate structuring perspective, McDonald’s isn't primarily a fast-food company; it’s a masterclass in intel

Artificial Intelligence has transformed from a futuristic buzzword into a tangible business tool. One of the most cutting-edge applications we are seeing among our corporate clients is the creation of

The modern digital economy moves faster than traditional banking. For forward-thinking organisations, especially Co-operatives acting as hubs for digital services, community projects, or decentralised

When you sell physical goods, the product does the talking. A customer can hold a premium leather bag, test drive a car, or taste a craft beer. But what happens when what you sell is entirely invisibl

When most business owners think about their balance sheet, their minds jump to tangible assets: office buildings, inventory, manufacturing machinery, or vehicle fleets. There's a bias towards what you

In a pivotal U.S. court decision in November 2013, the diagnostics industry received critical guidance on patent eligibility, particularly for diagnostic method claims. The court invalidated a patent applying the Mayo test, centred on whether method claims pre-empt all future use of a natural phenomenon. The case of Sequenom as the exclusive licensee of a patent for the non-invasive detection of fetal DNA in maternal samples highlighted the fine line in patent eligibility.
The Court's decision, hinging on the Mayo patent eligibility test, scrutinised whether claims in the patent amounted to more than just applying a natural phenomenon. It was determined that the steps outlined in the patent were routine, failing to elevate the claim beyond the natural phenomenon itself. The crucial factor was whether the patent pre-empted all future practical uses of the natural phenomenon. The Court found that Sequenom suggested alternative methods were not commercially viable, thus not mitigating the issue of pre-emption.
This ruling serves as an important lesson for Australian applicants in the US, underscoring that the mere application of known technology to a natural phenomenon does not constitute an inventive or innovative use. The decision underscores the importance of demonstrating that a claimed invention only monopolises some future practical uses of a natural phenomenon, especially in diagnostic patent applications.