Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.

20 Citing briefs

  1. Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 61 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document

    Filed August 26, 2009

    See Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130: The qualities of these bacteria like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.

  2. In Re: BRCA1- and BRCA2- Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation

    MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed March 10, 2014

    This argument is reminiscent of those made by the patent holder in Funk Bros. 333 U.S. at 131. The claimed invention there was a culture of naturally occurring bacterium which, when mixed, had beneficial effects.

  3. University of Utah Research Foundation et al v. Ambry Genetics

    MEMORANDUM DECISION and Orderdenying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See order for details. Signed

    Filed March 10, 2014

    This argument is reminiscent of those made by the patent holder in Funk Bros. 333 U.S. at 131. The claimed invention there was a culture of naturally occurring bacterium which, when mixed, had beneficial effects.

  4. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc v. Sequenom, Inc

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed August 16, 2013

    Thus, “[h]e who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes.” Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130. Relying upon this rule, the Supreme Court has for many years found patents invalid that cover the discovery of a natural phenomenon.

  5. Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document

    Filed January 29, 2010

    Moreover, that quotation, which originated in an 1887 Supreme Court case dealing with the tariff definition of article of manufacture (Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615 (1887)), was certainly not a proclamation of a new definition for “compositions of matter” under Section 101, and Chakrabarty never even mentioned Parke-Davis. Moreover, plaintiffs’ new “markedly different” test seizes on the language quoted above that the Supreme Court in Chakrabarty used to describe how the applicant’s bacterium was “new” within the meaning of Section 101 as compared to the culture held unpatentable in Funk Bros., 333 U.S. 127; Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 310. The Court was not imposing any “new” requirement for patent-eligibility beyond the “new” requirement of the statute.

  6. Mimedx Group, Inc. v. Liventa Bioscience, Inc. et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment that the '494 Patent's Asserted Claims are Not Patent Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

    Filed January 9, 2017

    That argument fails as a matter of law, because claims directed to nature-based products must be “markedly different” than their naturally-occurring counterpart—not simply “distinct” or “different”—to be patent eligible. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310 (1980); Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116-18 (2013) (“Myriad”); Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 131 (1948); see also In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir.

  7. Loramax LLC v. The Dreyfus Corporation

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed August 31, 2015

    Abstract ideas “are ‘part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 602 (quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)). Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

  8. Presqriber, LLC v. AO Capital Partners LLC d/b/a Prognosis Innovation Healthcare

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed November 3, 2014

    Such fundamental truths are “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3225 (quoting Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)); see Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301. Earlier this year the Supreme Court reiterated the prohibition against patenting abstract business concepts, such as filling outpatient medical prescriptions.

  9. Presqriber, LLC v. Practice Fusion, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support

    Filed August 4, 2014

    Such fundamental truths are “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3225 (quoting Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)); see Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301. Most recently, in Alice Corporation Pty., Ltd. v CLS Bank International, et al., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court reiterated the prohibition against patenting such abstract business concepts.

  10. Certified Measurement, LLC v. Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric LLC et al

    MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively for a More Definite Statement

    Filed July 7, 2014

    Such fundamental truths are “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3225 (quoting Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301. The abstract ideas category “embodies the longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.”