George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

CPIP Scholars Ask Federal Circuit to Fix Patent Eligibility Doctrine in Cleveland Clinic Appeal

files labeled as "patents"Last week, a group of CPIP scholars filed an amicus brief in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, a case currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patents at issue cover diagnostic tests used to assess a person’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office initially found the claims to be unpatentable subject matter under Section 101; however, the claims were eventually allowed as new and unconventional applications of known laboratory techniques. Nevertheless, the district court held the claims unpatentable under Section 101, reasoning that they were ineligible under the Alice-Mayo test.

The amicus brief filed last week, written by CPIP’s David Lund and Adam Mossoff, points out that the diagnostic methods at issue are the very sort of innovations the patent system is meant to encourage. Moreover, given the factual conclusions that must be made in order to determine whether the claims are directed to a natural law or whether the laboratory techniques are routine and conventional, they argue that the procedural posture of the case—a motion to dismiss—precludes proper application of the Alice-Mayo test. They note that misapplication of the patent eligibility test continues to lead courts to reject patent protection for many meritorious inventions—as demonstrated in this very case. The amici urge the Federal Circuit to bring clarity and predictability to Section 101 doctrine by rejecting the district court’s conclusory assertions that were made without proper factual support.

The Summary of Argument from the amicus brief is copied below:


The district court’s decision in The Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, No. 17-cv-198, 2017 WL 3381976 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2017), represents an improper application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The parties address the relevant innovation covered by Cleveland Clinic’s patents, as well as the application of the Supreme Court’s and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s § 101 jurisprudence; accordingly, amici offer additional insight concerning the legal and policy problems with the trial court’s decision: innovation in improving the assessment of a patient’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease is an invention that the patent system is designed to promote, and thus it should be eligible for patent protection. Barring a properly reasoned, factually-based determination that either a claimed method-of-treatment invention covers a law of nature or, under step two of the Alice-Mayo test, that it would be considered routine or ordinary by a person having skill in the art, a district court should not find claims to be ineligible subject matter under § 101 on a motion to dismiss. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., __ F.3d at ___, No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The district court’s decision in this case conflicts with the Patent Act as an integrated statutory framework for promoting and securing innovation in the life sciences, as construed by both the Supreme Court and this court.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the plain meaning of the language of § 101 indicates that the scope of patentable subject matter is broad. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 315 (1980). This is why the Supreme Court consistently has held that “[t]he § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry is only a threshold test.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602 (2010). Accordingly, this “threshold test” is necessarily followed by the more exacting statutory requirements of assessing a claim as a whole according to the standard of a person having skill in the art as to whether it is novel, nonobvious, and fully disclosed as required by the quid pro quo offered to inventors by the patent system. Id.

Unfortunately, courts have been focusing on out-of-context statements in the Supreme Court’s recent § 101 cases that have led those courts to inexorably apply the two-step “Alice-Mayo test” in an unbalanced and legally improper manner. See Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). Courts are dissecting claims into particular elements and then construing these elements in highly generalized terms with no evidentiary support. Thus, as happened in this case, a district court all too often merely asserts a conclusory finding that the claim— actually, specific elements dissected out of the claim as a whole—covers ineligible laws of nature or abstract ideas.

This has led lower courts to create an unduly stringent and restrictive patent eligibility test under the Alice-Mayo test, as evidenced by the district court’s decision in this case. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s decisions in Chakrabarty and Bilski that § 101 is only a threshold inquiry identifying broad statutory categories of patent-eligible inventions. This improper application of the Alice-Mayo test inevitably leads to § 101 rejections of patentable method inventions, as the district court in this case rejected an innovative invention in the bio-pharmaceutical sector that the patent system is designed to promote.

Furthermore, the improper treatment of the § 101 inquiry as a pure question of law requiring no evidentiary findings whatsoever, especially when the parties expressly dispute as to what a person having skill in the art would consider routine or ordinary, conflicts with the Supreme Court’s and this Court’s decisions that the application of the patentability requirements in the Patent Act present questions of law with underlying questions of fact. See Teva Pharm. USA Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 838 (2015) (claim construction); KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (nonobviousness under § 103); Berkheimer, __ F.3d at ___, No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patentable subject matter under § 101); Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indefiniteness under § 112); Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 745 F.3d 1180, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (enablement under § 112). This has sowed indeterminacy in patent eligibility doctrine, as inventors and companies in the innovation industries are left with little predictability concerning when or how courts will dissect claims and make conclusory assertions that they are patent ineligible under § 101.

To read the amicus brief, please click here.