• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent application process / Before filing a patent application / Patent Eligible Subject Matter / Method of treatment is eligible for patent protection versus a diagnostic method

Method of treatment is eligible for patent protection versus a diagnostic method

May 26, 2018 by James Yang

treatment method patent eligibleAlthough Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir. April 13, 2018) is in the field of medicine, it could be applicable to other fields as well because in a broad sense Vanda is dealing with a distinction between diagnosing a condition (ineligible) versus a method of treatment (eligible).  For example, is a method of detecting an underground leak ineligible subject matter?  The USPTO and the federal courts have yet to expand the analysis of patent-ineligible subject matter outside of the software and medical fields, but theoretically, nothing is stopping it from the expansion of its application.

Since 2014, U.S. patent laws have changed significantly regarding what is patent-eligible subject matter.  The standard advice used to be that “anything made under the sun by man” was eligible for a patent as long as the invention was novel and non-obviousness.  Now, that has all changed for some types of inventions such as with medical diagnostic tests.  The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the federal courts now consider diagnostic tests to be ineligible for patent as an abstract idea.

Method of treatment is patent eligible subject matter

Vanda is important because:

  1. the majority opinion makes a distinction between a method of treatment for a disease that is eligible for patent protection, whereas a method for diagnosing a condition for the efficacy of a pharmaceutical drug is not; and
  2. the arguments presented by the dissenting opinion try to enlarge the scope of inventions that would be ineligible for patent protection.

The majority opinion was written by Circuit Judge Lourie and joined by Circuit Judge Hughes.  The dissenting opinion was by Chief Judge Prost.

Method of treatment claims recites specific dosage levels based on condition

In Vanda, the patent was related to a method of treating schizophrenia patients with iloperidone wherein the dosage range is based on the patient’s genotype.  The patent claim went above and beyond just diagnosing the patient’s genotype thought.  The claim included the specific dosage in the treatment steps:

if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administer iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 12 mg/day or less, and

if the patient does not have a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administer iloperidone to the patient in an amount that is greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day.

The diagnostic method only reciting an indication to change dosage is ineligible for patent protection

The Federal Circuit contrasted this claim with the claim of Mayo directed to a diagnostic method.  The patent claim of Mayo claimed a method for “optimizing” the dosage of thiopurine drugs by administering thiopurine drugs to a patient and measuring the levels of certain metabolites in the blood, wherein the level of metabolites indicates whether to adjust the dosage.  The patent claims of Mayo recited:

wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8×108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and

wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8×108 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject. (emphasis added).

The patent claims of Mayo did not specify how to adjust the dosage but merely that the dosage would need to be adjusted.  The patent claims of Mayo only indicated a need to adjust.  Because of this, the Federal Circuit described the patent claims of Mayo as being directed to a natural law with a limitation to “apply it,” whereas the patent claims of Vanda went further and provide clear instructions to doctors on how to adjust the dosage.

Let’s consider how the Federal Circuit came to this distinction.

Two-step Alice/Mayo framework for patent-eligible subject matter

In analyzing patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101, a federal court as a first step determines whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea.  If so, then as a second step, the federal court determines whether claims recite something more or an inventive step.

In Vanda, the Federal Circuit recognized the specific dosage level adjustments and held that because the claims actually recited the dosage levels or how to adjust the dosage levels based on the patient’s genotype, the patent claims were directed to a method of treatment for a disease, and not to a mere diagnostic method or a test to determine a condition.  Hence, the Federal Circuit held that the patent claims for a method of treatment for a disease is eligible for patent protection.

Dissenting opinion

As stated above, the dissenting opinion was written by Chief Judge Prost.  The dissenting opinion tried to, but in my opinion, failed to make his case as to why the majority was wrong.  In particular, the dissent reasoned that the patent claims of Mayo also specified the specific dosage levels and the court there held that the patent claims were ineligible for patent protection, and thus the instant claims even if it recites specific dosage levels should also be ineligible for patent protection.

For the two judges that made up the majority opinion, the issue of patent-eligible subject matter was dealt with in the first step.  The Federal Circuit never answered whether there was something more or an inventive step as required by the second step.  This is significant because once a claim is identified as being directed to an abstract idea, then in my opinion, it becomes significantly more difficult to show that the claims also recite an inventive step in the second step so that the claims are still eligible for patent protection. The inventive step by its nature requires an inquiry into what already existed (i.e., novelty) and whether the claimed improvement is an inventive step (i.e., nonobviousness).

As shown above, by comparing the claims of the instant case with the claims of the Mayo case, the claims of the instant case provided more information whereas the patent claims of the Mayo case only recites an indication of a need to adjust but did not specify how to make the adjustment.

The dissenting opinion is more interesting for what the dissent is trying to convince the other judges to agree to.  The dissent argues that the majority opinion should have held that the claimed invention in Vanda was directed to an abstract idea.  The dissent urged the majority to subscribe to an analysis where more inventions would be deemed to be directed to an abstract idea.  Because the “inventive step” standard is harder to overcome, this would mean that more patents would be invalidated compared to the approach of the majority.

I’m sympathetic to the notion that a law of nature and natural phenomena would be not novel.  Law of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the three exceptions to the general rule that anything made by man under the sun is eligible for patent protection.  A law of nature and natural phenomena always existed.

However, an abstract idea has not always existed, at least by the way the federal courts are using the term.  The Section 101 framework should not look to whether an idea is new or nonobvious (i.e., inventive step) to determine if it is abstract.  This has been one of the complaints in the two-step Alice/Mayo framework.  see USPTO report on the patent-eligible subject matter. In Vanda, the dosage levels based on the patient’s genotype is new.  There is nothing abstract about the specific dosage levels.  Anyone can apply it without thinking.  It is a purely mechanical application of the relationship between the drug and the patient’s genotype.  Moreover, there does not appear to be anything abstract about identifying a medical condition as in Mayo.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney