Courts are making bad patent law
An article by Washington, D.C. partner Bob Stoll was published in The Hill. The article, titled, “Courts are making bad patent law,” discussed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom, which found that the newly found noninvasive and safer alternative to existing tests in prenatal DNA screening is not eligible for patent protection.
Bob outlines his concerns about this decision, for example, despite the unanimous belief that the patentees made a significant contribution to the medical field, their invention is not eligible for patenting.
Bob argues that “to deny the patentability for a patent to an invention that is so clearly useful to so many people does not fulfill the requirement of the Constitution to promote the useful arts.”
Read about the court’s mistake in the Ariosa v. Sequenom ruling.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
Meet the Authors
