NEWS Security breach
ICANN was forced to shut down the online TAS system aſter a technical glitch exposed some applicants’ data.
On the final day of the application period—April 12—ICANN closed TAS and extended the registration deadline until at least April 20. Te error allowed a “limited number of users” to view other users’ file names and user names, according to a statement.
ICANN said no application data were compromised or lost, although one anonymous applicant said it saw another file name and believed it to be the applied-for string. ICANN said it will inform all applicants about whether they have been affected. On April 17, ICANN said it aimed to re-open the system by April 20.
Taylor of Hogan Lovells said he was unsure whether the glitch would affect the reveal date of April 30. n
US Supreme Court remands Myriad patent ruling
In light of its decision in Prometheus v Mayo, the US Supreme Court has remanded the Myriad Genetics patent case to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On March 26 the court set aside the ruling that Myriad can patent two human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which account for most forms of breast and ovarian cancer. The patents allow Myriad exclusively to perform genetic tests that could help to determine future treatment of the cancerous genes.
In a separate case the week before, the Supreme Court invalidated two patents held by Prometheus Laboratories, a therapeutics and diagnostics company owned by Nestlé.
The patents covered blood-monitoring medical tests that could help decide the correct dosage of a drug to give to a particular patient.
Myriad’s DNA claims to a product are different from Prometheus’s claims to a method. The Myriad claims are directed to a product derived from, but different in chemical structure to, the DNA as it exists in nature. The fact that the DNA carries the same information as the native DNA does not change the fact that, as isolated, the DNA is a new chemical entity with new uses, said James Haley, a partner at Ropes & Gray LLP in New York. He added that while the DNA existed in nature, it had never been previously
AOL and Microsoft agree billion dollar patent deal
As technology companies continue battling to bolster their IP rights, Microsoſt has paid AOL around $1 billion for more than 800 patents and related applications.
Under the agreement AOL will license more than 300 other patents and applications covering its “core and strategic technologies”, according to a statement. Although the company has not disclosed exactly what they cover, it owns patents for advertising, content management, social networking, multimedia and online chat technologies.
“Tis is a valuable portfolio that we have been following for years and analysing in detail for several months,” said Brad Smith, Microsoſt’s general counsel.
www.worldipreview.com
Te deal represents the latest attempt by a technology company to seize the upper hand in the war over patents. In July 2011, a consortium including Microsoſt and Research In Motion beat Google to 6,000 patents owned by telecoms equipment company Nortel. Te following month, Google hit back by acquiring Motorola Mobility for its patents—a deal worth $12.5 billion.
Meanwhile, Samsung and Apple are battling in court over patent rights for the iPhone 4S, iPad and Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus—showing how technology multinationals are increasingly desperate to protect their IP. n
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2012 7
identified or employed outside of the body for a useful purpose.
“As such, the isolated DNA is novel,” he said. “These facts suggest that the Supreme Court’s rationale in Prometheus v Mayo—that to be patent-eligible, a claim must do more than recite a law of nature and, say, apply it using conventional steps—should not apply to Myriad’s DNA claims.”
Edward Reines, of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP in Silicon Valley, added: “Prometheus suggests that the High Court will not look kindly on the Myriad composition claims. There is nothing in Prometheus itself that requires the rejection of the Myriad gene patents, but it creates an unfriendly climate for such claims.” n
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84