Amicus Briefs

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (“BIO”) is the country’s largest biotechnology trade association, representing over 1100 companies, academic institutions, and biotechnology centers in all 50 states and in countries around the world. BIO members research and develop biotechnological healthcare, agricultural, environmental, and industrial products. These members are a diverse group that range from start-up businesses and university spin-offs to Fortune 500 corporations.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization (“BIO”) is the world’s largest biotechnology trade association, representing over 1,100 companies, academic institutions, and biotechnology centers in all 50 states and in countries spanning the globe.1 BIO members are actively involved in cutting edge research and development of biotechnology products.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is the country’s largest biotechnology trade organization, representing over 1100 companies, academic institutions, and biotechnology centers in all 50 States and countries around the world.1 BIO members undertake research and development of biotechnological healthcare, agricultural, environmental, and industrial products. While some of BIO’s corporate members are Fortune 500 companies, 90% of its members are small or mid-size businesses, with annual revenues of less than $25 million.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is the country’s largest biotechnology trade organization, representing over 1100 companies, academic institutions, and biotechnology centers in all 50 States and countries around the world.
INTRODUCTION BIO and CLA submit this brief in support of the decision below, and also to counter the troubling and unsubstantiated assertions of the amici in support of the Appellants. BIO and CLA reject the proposition that this Court’s recent declaratory judgment standing cases have departed from guiding Supreme Court precedent. Equally important, BIO and CLA reject the proposition of amicus Intellectual Property Professors (“IPP”) that patent validity issues warrant a departure from, and essentially a dilution of, traditional standing requirements.
The Federal Circuit Court previously concluded that the claimed isolated genomic DNA and cDNA molecules in this case are patentable compositions of matter. Nothing in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), changes the framework for that analysis or the principles that informed this Court’s decision. The composition of matter claims therefore remain patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Method claim 20 also easily survives review, because it involves the use of a transformed cell that itself would be patent eligible.