Monday, 22 December 2014
Even More on the New Eligibility Guidance, Myriad and Promega v Life Tech
The new Guidance is available here. A PDF version is available here. The associated ‘Nature-Based Products’ examples are available here.
A further article from IPWatchdog discussing the new guidance can be found here. It discusses in detail how the new guidance differs from the previous one and how this should mean that more computer-implemented inventions will be found to be eligible. Whilst the IPWatchdog blog has had the most negative reaction to the Alice decision of all the blogs we read, it is also the one that has had the most informative comments on the implications of the changes in law in this area.
In another post IPWatchdog discusses the ‘significantly more’ part of the Alice test and how this can be shown (see here).
Personalised Medicine Bulletin discusses the life sciences aspects of new guidance with a focus on the new Myriad decision (see here). It notes the ‘markedly different’ analysis which can be used to support eligibility of products related to natural products.
Pepper Hamilton discuss the Myriad decision here, and comment on what it means for biotech and diagnostics patents in general.
PatentlyO discusses Promega v Life Tech here. This is about enablement of a claim where the term ‘comprising’ brings in other embodiments which are not shown to be enabled, i.e. combinations of loci that might not co-amplify. This seems a much stricter way of looking at enablement than in Europe.