Applied Filters
Fed Circ. affirms Stanford genetics patent rejection
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision denying Stanford University a patent application for calculating parent genes.
Fed Circuit rejects Stanford Uni’s ‘abstract’ genetics patent
Stanford University can’t patent a genetic testing method as it is based on “abstract mathematical calculations”, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled.
Zebrafish start-up secures CRISPR licence
ERS Genomics has agreed to license CRISPR-Cas9 technology to a Barcelona-based start-up which uses a zebrafish-based research model.
Illumina wins PTAB appeal over Columbia DNA patents
Biotech company Illumina has won a dispute with Columbia University, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit backed an earlier ruling that the university’s DNA-sequencing patents were invalid.
Roche urges SCOTUS to cancel Illumina patent win
Roche has asked the US Supreme Court to declare that methods of separating DNA are not patent-eligible.
Ravgen and Myriad in patent dispute over DNA testing tech
Biotechnology company Ravgen has accused Myriad Genetics and Myriad Women’s Health of infringing two patents covering non-invasive DNA testing technology.
Eli Lilly seals $1bn genetics deal
Eli Lilly is expanding its genetics business with the $880 million purchase of Prevail Therapeutics, in a deal that could rise to more than $1 billion.
Illumina, Roche accused of infringing genetic testing patents
Pharmaceutical companies Illumina and Roche have been sued for allegedly infringing two patents covering the technology for non-invasive DNA testing by Maryland genetic testing company Ravgen.
Abbott must face HIV testing patent suit, rules judge
Abbott Laboratories must face allegations brought by Grifols Diagnostic and a Novartis subsidiary that its HIV testing products infringe a patent covering a method to create HIV proteins using recombinant DNA.
EPO reveals decision behind Broad patent revocation
The European Patent Office has released the long-awaited reasoning for its decision to uphold the revocation of a Broad Institute CRISPR/Cas9 patent. In January this year, the EPO’s Board of Appeal concluded that the Broad’s patent, EP2,771,468, lacked novelty due to an invalid claim to priority. The EPO dealt with three questions in its reasoning.
