No. 20-892
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Illumina, Inc., et al.
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: and analyzing the separated DNA for diagnostic pu using well-known laboratory techniques is unpaten 35-usc-101 abstract-ideas diagnostic diagnostic-method dna dna-analysis dna-fragments laboratory-techniques myriad-decision myriad-doctrine natural-phenomena patent patent-eligibility section-101
Key Terms:
Patent
Patent
Latest Conference:
2021-05-20
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether a patent that claims nothing more than a method for separating smaller DNA fragments from larger ones, and analyzing the separated DNA for diagnostic purposes, using well-known laboratory techniques is unpatentable under Section 101 and Myriad.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a patent that claims nothing more than a method for separating smaller DNA fragments from larger ones, and analyzing the separated DNA for diagnostic purposes, using well-known laboratory techniques is unpatentable under Section 101 and Myriad
Docket Entries
2021-05-21
Joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 46.1 filed.
2021-05-21
Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
2021-05-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.
2021-05-04
Reply of petitioners Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-04-19
Brief of respondents Illumina, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
2021-02-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 19, 2021.
2021-02-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 18, 2021 to April 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-16
Response Requested. (Due March 18, 2021)
2021-02-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
2021-02-03
Waiver of right of respondent Illumina, Inc., et al. to respond filed.
2020-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2021)
Attorneys
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al.
Daralyn Jeannine Durie — Durie Tangri LLP, Petitioner
Illumina, Inc., et al.
Edward R. Reines — Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Respondent