An article by Washington, D.C. partner Bob Stoll was published in The Hill. The article, titled, “Courts are making bad patent law,” discussed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom, which found that the newly found noninvasive and safer alternative to existing tests in prenatal DNA screening is not eligible for patent protection.
Bob outlines his concerns about this decision, for example, despite the unanimous belief that the patentees made a significant contribution to the medical field, their invention is not eligible for patenting.
Bob argues that “to deny the patentability for a patent to an invention that is so clearly useful to so many people does not fulfill the requirement of the Constitution to promote the useful arts.”
Read about the court’s mistake in the Ariosa v. Sequenom ruling.