Standard News

Hide Advertisement
  • Business
  • Culture
  • News
  • Technology
  • Trending
Site logo
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court refuses to review prenatal test patent dispute

June 27, 2016 | By Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen after split 4-4 decision in first major case after Scalia death in Washington

By Andrew Chung

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid to review a legal fight over the cancellation of a patent on a less-risky form of prenatal testing, in a case that has left many companies and trade groups worried that important discoveries may no longer qualify for patents.

Advertisement

The decision by the Supreme Court leaves intact a ruling by a federal court to invalidate Sequenom Inc’s patent in an infringement dispute with rival Ariosa Diagnostics, a unit of Roche Holding AG.

Sequenom’s patent relates to a non-invasive test of a pregnant woman’s blood to detect fetal DNA in order to screen for genetic abnormalities such as Down Syndrome. Doctors say such tests have dramatically reduced the need for invasive tests such as amniocentesis, which carry a small risk of miscarriage.

Sequenom’s MaterniT21 prenatal test competes with Ariosa’s Harmony test. Both companies are based in California.

In June 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington agreed with Sequenom that the patented method “revolutionized” prenatal care, but nonetheless upheld the patent’s cancellation.

The ruling cited a Supreme Court decision from 2012, Mayo v. Prometheus, that made it harder to obtain patents on natural phenomena or substances.

Sequenom asked the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing that it needed to make clear its prior cases were not meant to deny patents on an invention that applies a natural phenomenon, such as a never-before-used diagnostic test. The company said investment in research could dry up if patents continue to be invalidated.

Roche told the court not to hear the case, saying the precedent should not be overturned.

Some 40 companies, trade groups and universities had urged the high court to take the case to clarify its own precedents on when discoveries derived from laws of nature can be patented, which lower courts have cited to cancel patents.

Microsoft Corp said the case had implications for computer-related patents, which are being “routinely invalidated” by federal courts.

The case is Sequenom, Inc v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc et al, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 15-1182.

tagreuters.com2016binary_LYNXNPEC5Q10O-VIEWIMAGE

← Previous Post Next Post →
Advertisement - Continue reading below
Share  On Facebook

California crews battle Big Sur blaze for 11th day

This Oklahoma Restaurant Has A History You Won’t Believe

Study: Of 93 Million Votes Since 2000, Pennsylvania Finds Just 544 Possible Illegal Ballots

Judge tosses suit against theater chain over Colorado cinema massacre

New Hampshire Powerball ticket matches winning numbers for $487 million jackpot

If You See This Happening At Walmart, Run For Your Life

After decades of segregation, anger boils over in Milwaukee

Georgia’s Oldest Standing Unique Home Offers Glimpse Of The Past

U.S. Air Force declares first squadron of F-35 jets combat-ready

Clinton says U.S. presidential election an ‘alternative reality’

load more Loading posts...

sidebar

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

sidebar-alt

  • About Us
  • Imprint
  • Contact Us
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy