The Supreme Court of the United States recently denied a petition from Sequenom Inc, San Diego, to review unfavorable decisions by lower federal courts.
The lower courts previously ruled that Sequenom’s US Patent no. 6,258,540 (’540 patent) is not patent-eligible under the criteria established by the Supreme Court’s Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories decision.
Sequenom will pursue no further appeal opportunities for review of the ‘540 patent.
Dirk van den Boom, PhD, Sequenom.
“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court denied our petition and will not review the patent eligibility of the groundbreaking techniques embodied in the ’540 patent,” says Dirk van den Boom, PhD, president and CEO of Sequenom. “We believe that the Supreme Court missed an ideal opportunity to clarify patent eligibility criteria not only to protect the significant investments made by Sequenom but also by other innovative organizations to advance the standard of patient care and treatment. We fear this decision will discourage such investments in the future.”
According to Sequenom, the ruling will have little business impact, as the company has been operating under the district court’s invalidity ruling since October 2013, and has had a pooling arrangement for noninvasive prenatal testing intellectual property with Illumina since December 2014.
In addition, valid and enforceable patents with claims equivalent to those of the ’540 patent are issued in Australia, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, and Japan.
For more information, visit Sequenom.
What is the rule when country A’s courts say a patent on object Q is not appropriate & country B’s courts say it is?
If a business in Country A has no enterprises in Country B, can it manufacture object Q in Country A without penalty?