<span id="midArticle_start"/>(Adds comment from companies, concurring opinion)
<span id="midArticle_0"/>By Andrew Chung
<span id="midArticle_1"/> (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court said onFriday that the discovery of a new form of prenatal testing thatavoids the risks of invasive medical techniques was good forscience but did not deserve a patent.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in theDistrict of Columbia said a patent held by genetic testingcompany Sequenom Inc on detecting fetal DNA in apregnant woman's blood was invalid. The decision by the nation'stop patent court upholds a ruling by a lower federal court inCalifornia and clears Roche Holding AG unit AriosaDiagnostics of infringement.
<span id="midArticle_3"/>The appeals court said the DNA's presence in the blood fellunder the U.S. Supreme Court's rule against patenting naturalphenomena.
<span id="midArticle_4"/> <span class="first-article-divide"/>The decision is the latest to interpret two Supreme Courtdecisions from 2012 and 2013 that made it harder to obtainpatents on naturally occurring substances and the tests used todetect them, potentially putting a wide swath of biotech patentsat risk.
<span id="midArticle_5"/>Sequenom's innovation was in finding a way to use DNA foundin maternal blood samples that had previously been discarded asmedical waste in order to determine certain fetalcharacteristics, such as gender. The method avoided the risk ofmore-invasive tests, such as taking samples from the fetus orplacenta, the decision said.
<span id="midArticle_6"/>But this innovation was still was not enough to deserve apatent, the appeals court said.
<span id="midArticle_7"/> <span class="second-article-divide"/>While calling the test "a positive and valuable contributionto science," the court said: "Even such valuable contributionscan fall short of statutory patentable subject matter, as itdoes here."
<span id="midArticle_8"/>Shares of Sequenom were up 3 cents at $3.35 in late trading.
<span id="midArticle_9"/> <span class="third-article-divide"/>The case originated in 2011 and 2012 when San Diego-basedSequenom and San Jose, California-based Ariosa sued each otherover the patent. Sequenom said Ariosa infringed with its Harmonyprenatal test.
<span id="midArticle_10"/>Ariosa's attorney, David Gindler, hailed the decision as avictory and said preventing companies from patenting naturalphenomena allows researchers to freely perform their work, whichcan lead to new treatments and benefits for patients. Sequenomdeclined to comment.
<span id="midArticle_11"/>In a unusual concurring opinion, one of the three judges onthe appeals panel, Circuit Judge Richard Linn, said he wasforced to invalidate the patent because of the unnecessarilybroad wording in one of the Supreme Court precedents, which heis bound to follow. He said that Sequenom should have beenentitled to keep its patent.
<span id="midArticle_12"/>The case is Ariosa Diagnostics et al. v. Sequenom, Inc etal., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No.14-1139 and 14-1144. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi andDan Grebler)
<span id="midArticle_13"/>
<span id="midArticle_0"/>By Andrew Chung
<span id="midArticle_1"/> (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court said onFriday that the discovery of a new form of prenatal testing thatavoids the risks of invasive medical techniques was good forscience but did not deserve a patent.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in theDistrict of Columbia said a patent held by genetic testingcompany Sequenom Inc on detecting fetal DNA in apregnant woman's blood was invalid. The decision by the nation'stop patent court upholds a ruling by a lower federal court inCalifornia and clears Roche Holding AG unit AriosaDiagnostics of infringement.
<span id="midArticle_3"/>The appeals court said the DNA's presence in the blood fellunder the U.S. Supreme Court's rule against patenting naturalphenomena.
<span id="midArticle_4"/> <span class="first-article-divide"/>The decision is the latest to interpret two Supreme Courtdecisions from 2012 and 2013 that made it harder to obtainpatents on naturally occurring substances and the tests used todetect them, potentially putting a wide swath of biotech patentsat risk.
<span id="midArticle_5"/>Sequenom's innovation was in finding a way to use DNA foundin maternal blood samples that had previously been discarded asmedical waste in order to determine certain fetalcharacteristics, such as gender. The method avoided the risk ofmore-invasive tests, such as taking samples from the fetus orplacenta, the decision said.
<span id="midArticle_6"/>But this innovation was still was not enough to deserve apatent, the appeals court said.
<span id="midArticle_7"/> <span class="second-article-divide"/>While calling the test "a positive and valuable contributionto science," the court said: "Even such valuable contributionscan fall short of statutory patentable subject matter, as itdoes here."
<span id="midArticle_8"/>Shares of Sequenom were up 3 cents at $3.35 in late trading.
<span id="midArticle_9"/> <span class="third-article-divide"/>The case originated in 2011 and 2012 when San Diego-basedSequenom and San Jose, California-based Ariosa sued each otherover the patent. Sequenom said Ariosa infringed with its Harmonyprenatal test.
<span id="midArticle_10"/>Ariosa's attorney, David Gindler, hailed the decision as avictory and said preventing companies from patenting naturalphenomena allows researchers to freely perform their work, whichcan lead to new treatments and benefits for patients. Sequenomdeclined to comment.
<span id="midArticle_11"/>In a unusual concurring opinion, one of the three judges onthe appeals panel, Circuit Judge Richard Linn, said he wasforced to invalidate the patent because of the unnecessarilybroad wording in one of the Supreme Court precedents, which heis bound to follow. He said that Sequenom should have beenentitled to keep its patent.
<span id="midArticle_12"/>The case is Ariosa Diagnostics et al. v. Sequenom, Inc etal., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No.14-1139 and 14-1144. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi andDan Grebler)
<span id="midArticle_13"/>
via Smart Health Shop Forum http://ift.tt/1L6tjdb
No comments:
Post a Comment