US Courts Tripping over TRIPS

October 09, 2019
Post by Oliver P. Couture, Ph.D.

This summer, the Australian Federal Court went the other way in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. than the US, finding that the method of detecting fetal DNA in maternal blood to be eligible subject matter and that the patent was valid and infringed. While the Federal Circuit described the invention as “truly meritorious” and “ground breaking”, they found it to be invalid because it was directed to a natural law.

Both Australia and the US are members of the WTO, which means they both have to operate under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. TRIPS, which was championed by the US in the 90s, commits signatory countries to adopt a set of patent standards. Section 5, Article 27(1) of TRIPS states, “patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.”

Judge Moore in her dissent in Athena Diagnostic v. Mayo Collaborative Services argued that there is now a per se bar on diagnostic patents because, since Mayo, the Federal Circuit has “held every single diagnostic claim in every case before us ineligible” and cites to a number of cases, including Ariosa. Now that Ariosa has come out two different ways in two WTO member countries, it may be possible for the governments of parties involved in such cases, such as England on behalf of Oxford, to file a complaint at the WTO against the US for violating TRIPS Article 27(1) because of this effective ban on diagnostic patents.

While TRIPS under Article 27(3)(a) does allow for members to exclude “diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals,” Congress has not done so and Justice Kavanaugh writing for the court in an unanimous opinion in Henry Schein, Inc. et al. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. states, “we may not engraft our own exceptions onto the statutory text.” Therefore, not only do the judicial exceptions to Section 101 apparently violate Supreme Court precedence, their application has had an effect of violating the TRIPS Agreement.

Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.