After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim 'markedly different' from nature?

Abstract

After Myriad, what types of claim amendments change a patent ineligible isolated gene claim into an eligible patent claim that is 'markedly different' from Nature?

One year after Vanda, are diagnostics patents transforming into methods of treatment to overcome Mayo-based rejections?

“…Specifically, we address the following research questions: The method to answer these questions (Box 1) is derived from similar methods used to analyze the impact of Mayo and Myriad. 2,7,8,9 Results & Examples We identified 407 patent cases where applicants cited Vanda in their response to a USPTO office action containing a 35 USC 101 rejection citing Mayo.…”

Continental drift? Do European clinical genetic testing laboratories have a patent problem?

“…However, courts have since applied the case to invalidate a variety of patents relevant to methods for diagnosing conditions based on observing genetic characteristics, including methods for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) [17] and for identifying whether a patient has a disease-linked variant [18]. That said, some key aspects of genetic testing still remain eligible for US patent protection; including laboratory-engineered DNA (e.g., complementary DNA, and recombinant DNA) [19] and sequencing techniques [20].…”

Opening options for material transfer

“…As one example, a collection of patents on green fluorescent proteins initially aggregated and outlicensed by GE Healthcare Lifesciences 16 have all expired (Table 2). Moreover, patent claims to nucleic acid sequences are now subject to heightened scrutiny and, if issued at all, are drawn much more narrowly than in the past 17,18 .…”