The following are really more notes for myself rather than an article or essay – DC
The pending appeal in ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC is quite interesting. As in Mayo v. Prometheus, the district court dismissed Athena’s medical diagnostic methods as directed toward laws of nature. The case is now on appeal, and Athena’s attorneys have argued that this case is different. In addition to the party briefs, several amici have also filed. Oral arguments were held on October 4, 2018 — and involved a thoughtful discussion by Judges Lourie, Newman, and Stoll as well as
White & Case Fenwick attorney Adam Gahtan (representing Athena and Oxford) and Fish & Richardson attorney Jonathan E. Singer (representing Mayo). [mp3]. Judge Lourie’s comment about the technology here is that the claims cover “medical research rather than product development.”
Claim 7 is at issue in the case. The claim is directed to a diagnostic method :
1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission … disorders related to muscle specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) in a mammal comprising:
the step of detecting in a bodily fluid of said mammal autoantibodies to an epitope of MuSK.
7. A method according to claim 1, comprising:
contacting MuSK . . . having a suitable label thereon, with said bodily fluid,
immunoprecipitating any antibody/MuSK complex . . . from said bodily fluid and
monitoring for said label on any of said antibody/MuSK complex …
wherein the presence of said label is indicative of said mammal is suffering from said neurotransmission or developmental disorder related to MuSK.
- Oral Arguments MP3
- Party Briefs
Note – Gahtan has jumped from White & Case to Fenwick.