Subscribe
baldyrgan-shutterstock-com
baldyrgan / Shutterstock.com
22 October 2015Americas

Ariosa says the sky is not falling, so Federal Circuit decision must stand

Ariosa Diagnostics has urged the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject Sequenom’s en banc request, stating that behind its “sky is falling” rhetoric is really a demand for courts to revise the US Supreme Court’s two-part test in determining the eligibility of a patent.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Americas
Sequenom’s en banc petition rejected by Federal Circuit
2 December 2015   The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected Sequenom’s petition to re-hear its dispute with Ariosa Diagnostics en banc.
Americas
CAFC must end ‘existential threat’ to patents, argues Sequenom
19 August 2015   Sequenom has requested an en banc review of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision to invalidate one of its patents in its dispute with Ariosa Diagnostics, arguing that the decision creates an “existential threat” to patent protection.
Americas
Federal Circuit invalidates Sequenom patent, cites Mayo
17 June 2015   A US appeals court has affirmed that a patent covering the method of detecting foetal abnormalities in pregnant mothers is ineligible for protection because it applies to a “natural phenomenon”.


Editor's picks

‘We created law’: G1/24 and the creation of the ‘diamond standard’
Europe
‘We created law’: G1/24 and the creation of the ‘diamond standard’
3 July 2025

Editor's picks

Europe
‘We created law’: G1/24 and the creation of the ‘diamond standard’
3 July 2025

More on this story

Americas
Sequenom’s en banc petition rejected by Federal Circuit
2 December 2015   The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected Sequenom’s petition to re-hear its dispute with Ariosa Diagnostics en banc.
Americas
CAFC must end ‘existential threat’ to patents, argues Sequenom
19 August 2015   Sequenom has requested an en banc review of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision to invalidate one of its patents in its dispute with Ariosa Diagnostics, arguing that the decision creates an “existential threat” to patent protection.
Americas
Federal Circuit invalidates Sequenom patent, cites Mayo
17 June 2015   A US appeals court has affirmed that a patent covering the method of detecting foetal abnormalities in pregnant mothers is ineligible for protection because it applies to a “natural phenomenon”.

More on this story

Americas
Sequenom’s en banc petition rejected by Federal Circuit
2 December 2015   The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected Sequenom’s petition to re-hear its dispute with Ariosa Diagnostics en banc.
Americas
CAFC must end ‘existential threat’ to patents, argues Sequenom
19 August 2015   Sequenom has requested an en banc review of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision to invalidate one of its patents in its dispute with Ariosa Diagnostics, arguing that the decision creates an “existential threat” to patent protection.
Americas
Federal Circuit invalidates Sequenom patent, cites Mayo
17 June 2015   A US appeals court has affirmed that a patent covering the method of detecting foetal abnormalities in pregnant mothers is ineligible for protection because it applies to a “natural phenomenon”.

More features

‘We created law’: G1/24 and the creation of the ‘diamond standard’
BMS unit loses cell therapy patent at European Patent Office
Amgen sues Biocon over blockbuster bone drugs as first biosimilars enter market
Lord Justice Birss to become chancellor of the High Court
Bankruptcy judge approves $305m sale of genetics testing company
Sanofi successfully challenges rare disease patent in Europe
Bayer appoints new head of IP
WATCH: Policy direction—where are we now?