Judge Radar stepped down as chief judge. He remains a sitting judge on the federal circuit court of appeals. The lawyer he praised which appears to be the reason he resigned as chief is the lawyer for Verinata in sqnm's appeal. Rader has recused himself from two appeals involving that lawyer but there is no indication he has or will recuse himself from sqnm's appeal or that sqnm will ask him to. Even if he does, two of the three judges from the last appeal will be sitting on this appellate panel. All 3 judges ruled in sqnm's favor last time.
If the briefing deadline is pushed by 60 days, the likely date for oral argument will be similarly delayed as will the likely time by which the court will rule. Remember, oral argument and the ruling do not occur on any set schedule. They happen when the court decides.
You do realize that I am only referring to the motion to extend the time for filing briefs and the motion to take judicial notice, not the appeal itself.
SQNM's response was not due until 2/13 although they file it today. The infringers have 7 days to file a reply to the reponse unless the court advises that it will rule sooner. Likely there will not be a ruling until after 2/17. SQNM's motion for judicial notice of certain facts and treatises not presented in evidnce at the court below is, however, now ripe for a ruling. SQNM filed its reply to the infringers response today.
There were two inteparty proceedings filed by Ariosa. The second was consolidated into the first look for case no 2012-00022. I believe oral arguments already concluded.
Section 101 of the patent law says that "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor". There are other conditions, no prior patents, obviousness, but nowhere does the statute require that the method be transformative. Your interpretation of inventive and transformative (along with Judge Illston's) that it be novel doesn't square with other S. Ct. cases. In Diamond v. Diehr, the S. Ct said - "It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. This is particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made."
If the Ct follows the Diehr case, the 540 is patent eligible and Illston will be reversed. If however, the court continues the expansion of the court created exception to patent eligibility in cases involving natural law/phenomenon, then the court will uphold the ruling below. Historically the Fed Circuit and particularly the panel that will hear this case has been patent friendly.
SQNM hasn't asserted that the method in component part were either inventive or transformative. Rather it argues that the combination of these steps applied to ccfDNA was inventive.
A recording of the oral argument is available on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals website less than a week after oral argument. Hearing dates are posted on their website as well. You don't have to rely on others to post.
No, predicting the outcome of litigation is a fools errand. Especially without knowledge of all the facts and a sound basis in a very sophisticated area of law.
Sorry, I see no reason to speculate on stock price in the event some speculative event were to occur and I can't see any reason why my answer would make any difference to your investment decision. The answer I gave you might just be helpful to you (or others) is deciding whether to buy/sell or hold this stock.
It did, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. There are something like 18 judges sitting on that Court. The 3 judge panels that hear cases are assigned randomly shortly before oral argument is set.
Why would you presume judge Rader would hear SQNMs appeal? The panel is randomly selected and that won't happen for months.
SQNM filed its notice of appeal on 12/5/13 -median time of turnaround on appeals in the Fed Circuit is a little more than 11 months. Don't expect a ruling before 11/14.
Sorry to disappoint. I have little to offer on the subject of patent law beyond what I read in the PTAB files (which are available on line for free). I have only the most rudimentary understanding of this arcane process and less on the topic of sophisticated genetics issues. All I know is that there will be oral arguments in the MPSS interference proceedings btw lo and quake and there are oral arguments set on 1/24 in the Ariosa interference proceedings.
Yes. Go to SQNM's website. Look for the "invest" tab and then select "events" you will find the link there.
So only profitable companys' stock prices rise. Got it. Let me run over to the ICPT board and tell all those poor suckers who bought that stock in the $70's what fools they were to hold that stock. ICPT burned more cash than SQNM in the last 12 months.
The short answer is no. The 540 patent was issued in the EU a long time ago and a challenge to the patent was overruled on a final basis. 540 is and has been golden in the EU for all relevant time periods. This new patent appears to be a patent on Massively Parallel Shotgun Sequencing. My guess is this is the equivalent of the MPSS patent that Lo and Quake are fighting over in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the US.
Back to your original question, the legal standards and issues are different in the US and EU and if the existence of an EU patent was relevant, I suspect we would have seen it somewhere in SQNM's briefing before the USDC or the Court of Appeals. It has never been mentioned.
I think it means that Quake's prior patent application for a patent on a process for MPSS, massively parrallel shotgun sequencing talks about targeted sequencing, not shotgun (random) sequencing and some of his witnesses saying that Quake's patent described completely a specific embodiment of the process (as required) was crapola because the things they said were needed to perform the process didn't exist at the time he filed his application. If Quake's patent didn't include a specific embodiment - then it can't be considered first in line. Remember this has nothing to do with the 540 patent, although MPSS appears to be a necessary process to carry out the 540 patent. Namaste or someone with a better patent background can probably provide a more scholarly discussion, but that's my take.