Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

The Association for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office, No. 10-1406 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2012)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1406
Decided
April 30, 2012
Judge
See opinion
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

THE ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR

PATHOLOGY,

THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF MEDICAL

GENETICS,

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL

PATHOLOGY,

THE COLLEGE OF AMERICAN PATHOLOGISTS,

HAIG KAZAZIAN, MD,

ARUPA GANGULY, PHD, WENDY CHUNG, MD,

PHD, HARRY OSTRER, MD,

DAVID LEDBETTER, PHD, STEPHEN WARREN,

PHD, ELLEN MATLOFF, M.S.,

ELSA REICH, M.S., BREAST CANCER ACTION,

BOSTON WOMEN’S HEALTH BOOK COLLECTIVE,

LISBETH CERIANI,

RUNI LIMARY, GENAE GIRARD, PATRICE

FORTUNE,

VICKY THOMASON, AND KATHLEEN RAKER,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK

OFFICE,

Defendant,

and

MYRIAD GENETICS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

2ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR v. PTO 2

and

LORRIS BETZ, ROGER BOYER, JACK BRITTAIN,

ARNOLD B. COMBE,

RAYMOND GESTELAND, JAMES U. JENSEN,

JOHN KENDALL MORRIS,

THOMAS PARKS, DAVID W. PERSHING, AND

MICHAEL K. YOUNG,

IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTORS

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH

FOUNDATION,

Defendants-Appellants.

2010-1406

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in case no. 09-CV-4515, Senior Judge Robert W. Sweet.

O R D E R

On March 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The court’s opinion of July 29, 2011, is vacated, the mandate of this court issued on September 23, 2011, is recalled, and the appeal is reinstated.

33 ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR v. PTO

(2) The parties are requested to file simultaneous supplemental briefs, not exceeding 20 pages, not later than June 15, 2012, addressing the following issue: What is the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo to Myriad’s isolated DNA claims and to method claim 20 of the ’282 patent?

(3) An original and eleven copies of supplemental briefs shall be filed, and two copies of each brief shall be served on opposing counsel.

(4) Briefs of amici curiae will be entertained, limited to 15 pages and due not later than June 15, 2012, and any such amicus briefs may be filed without consent and leave of court but otherwise must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Federal Circuit Rule 29. The United States is expressly invited to file an amicus brief.

(5) Oral argument will be held at 10:00 a.m. on July 20, 2012.

F OR THE COURT

April 30, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Gregory A. Castanias, Esq.

Christopher A. Hansen, Esq.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

The Association for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office, No. 10-1406 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1406-20120430
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1406-20120430

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.