Source: https://salvadorilaw.com/category/patent/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:20:30+00:00

Document:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is implementing the first phase of the Access to Relevant Prior Art Initiative (“RPA Initiative”) to import from the immediate parent application into the continuing application.
In a continuing application, the citations corresponding to the documents considered by the examiner will be printed on the face of the patent issuing from the continuing application without the applicant having to resubmit the information on an Information Disclosure Statement. Additionally, an applicant’s duty to disclose information in the continuing application will continue to be satisfied for information considered in the parent application — and will be satisfied for any additional information made of record by the USPTO in the continuing application.
In a recent case, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, the Federal Circuit affirmed that claims directed to a nucleotide primer and claims directed to a detection method are invalid under 35 USC § 101.
In a recent case, E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit outlined four (4) ways to overcome obviousness rejections based on routine optimization. The patent at issue covered methods for preparing a compound under reaction conditions already described in three prior art references.
In a recent case, Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int’l Ltd., a divided Federal Circuit held valid a patent directed to a schizophrenia drug, finding that the claims met the “Mayo standard”.
The patent at issue directs physicians to treat patients who have low CYP2D6 activity (an enzyme) with a lower amount of iloperidone, a drug to treat schizophrenia.
Iloperidone is metabolized by CYP2D6, thus, a patient who is characterized with lower CYP2D6 activity is more prone to iloperidone cardiac side effects.
The Court held that the patent specifically tells physicians how to connect the relationship between dosage and a patient’s genotype to find the correct treatment, and that the claims do not describe any natural factor.
According to the Court, the claims were directed to “a specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome.” These claims differ from the claims cited in the “Mayo standard” because they recite more than a natural phenomenon since they link the activity of the enzyme CYP2D6 and a cardiac rhythm parameter.
Thus, the Court held that the claims were eligible under step 2 of the “Mayo test” (they were directed to significantly more than just a law of nature or a natural phenomenon) because the discovered results are not routine and conventional.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit held that the patent was valid.
In a recent decision, In re Bhagat, the Federal Circuit upheld that certain lipid compositions were non-patentable under 35 USC § 101.
In a new case, Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., the court considered an inventor’s investment in determining a patent’s eligibility of two patents.

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