Proceeding
|
Filing Date
|
|
Therasense v. Becton Dickinson
The Federal Circuit employs no less than five different tests to determine whether information is material such that it should be cited during prosecution in accordance with to 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 (Rule 56). Ironically, under the current framework, applicants and practitioners can comply with its duty of disclosure established by Rule 56 before the PTO and yet still be found by a court to have committed inequitable conduct for duty of disclosure-related issues. Recognizing these flaws, the BPLA proposes that the Federal Circuit scrap its multiple materiality tests in favor of a single test: an objective “but for” test whereby information would not be deemed material unless it invalidates one or more patent claims. The brief advocates the numerous advantages that would result from such a bright-line test, including: (1) realigning the inequitable conduct doctrine with its roots in common law fraud; (2) making it more difficult to allege and prove inequitable conduct; and (3) furthering the goal of providing the PTO with the information most pertinent to patentability without much extraneous material.
|
August 2, 2010 |
|
ACLU v. Myriad
Are genes patentable? That is the central question asked in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al., v. United States patent and Trademark Office, et al., also known as ACLU v. Myriad. The BPLA submitted an amicus brief arguing that the patents at issue, which are directed to certain "personalized medicine" inventions that test for predispositions to cancer, are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. sec. 101. The BPLA also argues that patents are vital tot he economy and that, without patents, innovation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries will decline sharply.
|
January 13, 2010 |
|
In re Bilski
The Supreme Court should reject the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test, declare that this Court’s precedent requires only that a method claim define a new and useful invention (rather than an abstraction) to be patent-eligible subject matter, and remand for application of that rule to the claims at issue. Alternatively, if the Court believes that remand is unnecessary and that Bilski’s claims define only a patent-ineligible mental process or fundamental idea—e.g., an abstraction such as the concept of hedging risk, lacking adequate limitation to a specific application—it should strike those claims on that ground while still rejecting the inflexible test enunciated by the Federal Circuit.
|
August 5, 2009 |
|
In re Engage
|
June 12, 2008 |
|
In re Bilski
The BPLA favors a strong and well administered patent system that is fair to all parties and that fosters innovation and promotes competition. We recognize that a system that is too lax or that is improperly administered strays from these objectives, but we do not believe that constraining Section 101 is either legally proper or justified by the Bilski claims or any other claim we can imagine. The prohibition on laws of nature, ideas and natural phenomena already strikes the right balance. This Court should reiterate that an invention, be it expressed as a method or apparatus, that produces a useful result is eligible for patent protection under Section 101.
|
April 7, 2008 |
|
MedImmune v. Genentech
|
July 25, 2006 |
|
Laboratory Corp. of America v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.
|
February 6, 2006 |
|
Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc.
|
September 22, 2005 |
| Phillips v. AWH Corp |
September 17, 2004 |
This area contains links to files in a .pdf format.
To obtain a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF Files, visit: 
|
