Source: https://www.healthcarelawinsights.com/2018/07/patent-office-guidance-improves-personalized-medicines-long-term-prognosis/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:08:31+00:00

Document:
On June 7, 2018 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a new Memorandum that clarifies its view of Subject Matter Eligibility, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, regarding the patentability of Personalized Medicine discoveries.
if the patient does not have a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount that is greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day, wherein a risk of QTc prolongation for a patient having a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is lower following the internal administration of 12 mg/day or less than it would be if the iloperidone were administered in an amount of greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day.
As the Memorandum explains, the Federal Circuit distinguished Vanda from recent jurisprudence concerning Subject Matter Eligibility, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court’s Mayo decision.  The distinction relies on a key point differentiation: the claims in Vanda described an application of the relationship between iloperidone, drug metabolism, and side effects from iloperidone, which, the Court stated, is different than Mayo’s approach.
The Memorandum emphasizes that Vanda’s claims’ “primary steps include ‘determining’ with a genotyping assay, and then ‘administering’ a certain quantity of drug based on that determination, in order to ‘treat a particular disease,’” quoting Vanda at 1134 (emphasis added). It is likely that examiners will be looking for this language to be present in patent claims when deciding Subject Matter Eligibility, and as such, patent attorneys would do well to include these key terms in proposed claims.
The Memorandum also expressed that the Federal Circuit’s Vanda decision did not consider whether the treatment steps were routine or conventional, referring to Step 2B of the two-step Alice/Mayo test. In that test, Step 1 asks whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, or composition of matter. If the answer to Step 1 is no, then the claim is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. If the answer to Step 1 is yes, then Step 2A asks whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. These are judicially recognized exceptions to patentability. If the answer to Step 2A is no, then the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter. If the answer to Step 2A is yes, then Step 2B asks if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the answer to Step 2B is yes, then the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter. If the answer to Step 2B is no, then the claim is not directed to patent eligible subject matter and is not patentable. Because the Vanda claims were found not to be directed to a law of nature in Step 2A, the claim was determined to be directed to patent eligible subject matter and there was no need to consider Step 2B.
Additionally, the Memorandum provided further advice as to the optimum wording of claims having Subject Matter Eligibility by citing its Training Materials on Subject Matter Eligibility—Life Sciences Examples, published May 4, 2016. There, Example 29 contains claims 5 and 6 which are directed to a hypothetic treatment method (Diagnosing and Treating Julitis) and provide examples of the language of claims that are Subject Matter Eligible according to Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
It should be noted that claims 5 and 6 contain a series of steps directed to diagnosing and treating a disease, similar to the claims of Vanda and Mayo. There are differences however. One difference is that the final step of claims 5 and 6 concerns administering a certain drug to treat a particular disease, which is different than the claims of Mayo that were, as a whole, directed to the diagnosis of the disease. Another difference is that the final step of claims 5 and 6 recites administering “an effective amount” of a certain drug to treat a particular disease whereas Vanda recited a specific amount of the drug to be administered. These recommended examples with their broad claim language suggest that when drafting these types of claims, it would be worthwhile to include a broader claim reciting the administration of “an effective amount” of a drug in addition to a narrower claim reciting the administration of a specific amount of a drug as the final step of the claim.
In summary, the new Memorandum from the USPTO provides additional guidance as to Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for “method of treatment claims” and Personalized Medicine discoveries in light of Vanda. The key point to remember when drafting such a claim is to use precise language describing the administration of a certain drug in a specific amount or “an effective amount” to treat a particular disease. Although the claim can have a diagnostic component, the ultimate step should be the administration of the drug to treat the disease.
Based in Chicago, Dr. Laura Labeots is a Patent Attorney and partner at Husch Blackwell LLP.
 Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
 See U.S. Patent No. 6,355,623 (the Mayo patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (the Vanda patent).
 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).
 See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Dr. Labeots is a patent attorney with a doctorate degree in Organic Chemistry from Northwestern University (Ph.D., M.S.). She formerly was a Research Faculty member at The University of Chicago in the Department of Biochemistry.
Branding 101 – Should puffery be avoided in healthcare advertising?
Branding 101 – Laudatory Trademarks: Are they worth the effort?

References: § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.