Skip to main content

Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About
Trending Topics
    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor, Employment, and Benefits
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations
    Industries

    View All

    • Aviation
    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Nonprofit Organizations
    • Real Estate
    • Sports & Stadiums
    • Technology
    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

      We help clients create positive return on investments in people, products, and the planet.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    • Women in Dealmaking

      We provide strategic counsel on complex corporate transactions and unite dynamic women in the dealmaking arena.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. Some clarity to method of treatment claims from the Supreme Court?

      Alerts

    Alert / Intellectual Property

    Some clarity to method of treatment claims from the Supreme Court?

    April 29, 2020

    LinkedInX (Twitter)EmailCopy URL

    By Ravinderjit Braich, Ph.D.

    When is a method of treatment not eligible for patent protection under section 101? When said method requires selectively administering treatment to some patients while withholding the treatment to other patients according to a divided Federal Circuit panel in INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc.[i] The majority (Chief Judge Prost joined by Judge Dyk, Judge Newman dissented) affirmed a district court determination that claims directed to withholding inhalation of nitrous oxide to neonatal patients identified having hypoxic respiratory failure and having left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) were ineligible for patent protection.  The majority reasoned that a method of treatment claim that simply tells a doctor to hold back treatment is “not focused on changing the physiological state of the patient to treat the disease,” and such a “claim is directed to the natural phenomenon” and “involves only well-understood, routine, and conventional steps.”[ii]  The underlying rationale for the INO decision appeared to be the majority’s attempt to define a “method of treatment” claim as requiring a doctor to affirmatively take some action (e.g., administer a drug).  While Mallinckrodt and its subsidiary INO Therapeutics LLC filed a petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court denied Mallinckrodt’s petition,[iii] continuing its recent trend of not taking up patent-eligible subject matter cases.

    Although this does not resolve the uncertainty created by the Alice/Mayo framework,[iv] the denial in the INO v. Praxair case does provide some guidance to patentees and applicants in the life sciences. The Supreme Court has effectively made claims that explicitly encompass withholding treatment to selected group of patients based on a diagnosis step ineligible for patent protection at this time. While not the outcome applicants and patent owners had hoped for, there is now at least some degree of direction as to what types of method of treatment claims clearly are not patent- eligible.

    Even in light of this, successful prosecution of patent applications directed to method of treatment claims that rely on a diagnostic step can still be achieved.  Applicants can increase their chances by drafting their claims such that the treatment is not withheld from a selected patient. In other words, if treatment is to be withheld from a selected group, claims should not explicitly recite such a group.


    1. INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., 2018-1019 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2019), cert. denied, No. 19-1103 (April 6, 2020).
      [Back to reference]
    2. Id. at 9, 14.
      [Back to reference]
    3. INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., No. 19-1103 (April 6, 2020).
      [Back to reference]
    4. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and the subsequent subject matter eligibility determination framework articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 2008 (2014).
      [Back to reference]

    Practices

    Life SciencesIntellectual Property

    Insights And Happenings

    • Alert

      Understanding global grace periods to avoid missing patent opportunities

      Sep 29, 2021
    • Alert

      Guidance on electronic signatures at the USPTO

      Nov 7, 2020
    • Alert

      Electronic signatures in the coronavirus (COVID-19) era

      May 12, 2020
    The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require any further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative. This material may be considered advertising under certain rules of professional conduct.

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Purchase Order Terms & Conditions
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL
    © 2025 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved