Ariosa v. Sequenom
2015 United States court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Ariosa v. Sequenom?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015),[1] is a controversial decision of the Federal Circuit in which the court applied the Mayo v. Prometheus test[2] to invalidate on the basis of subject matter eligibility a patent said to "solve ... a very practical problem accessing fetal DNA without creating a major health risk for the unborn child."[3] The rationale for denying patent-eligibility in this case allegedly stems from claims being directed toward non-eligible subject matter (Law of Nature), "if the APPLICATION [of this discovery] merely relies upon elements already known in the art."[4]
Ariosa v. Sequenom | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Full case name | Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc v. Sequenom, Inc. |
Decided | June 12, 2015 |
Citations | 788 F.3d 1371; 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1152 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 19 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2013) |
Subsequent history | Rehearing en banc denied, 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015); certiorari denied (June 27, 2016) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Jimmie V. Reyna, Richard Linn, Evan Wallach |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Reyna, joined by Linn, Wallach |
Concurrence | Linn |
Concurrence | Alan David Lourie (concurring in denial of rehearing en banc), joined by Kimberly Ann Moore |
Concurrence | Timothy B. Dyk (concurring in denial of rehearing en banc) |
Dissent | Pauline Newman (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) |
In December 2015, the Federal Circuit denied a motion for en banc rehearing, with several members of the court filing opinions urging Supreme Court review.[5] On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Sequenom's petition for a writ of certiorari.[6]