Ariosa v. Sequenom
| 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) |
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), is a controversial decision of the US Federal Circuit in which the court applied the Mayo v. Prometheus test 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." 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."
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. On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Sequenom's petition for a writ of certiorari.