District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss After Defendants Fail to Show Plaintiffs’ Diagnostic Claims Lacked an Inventive Concept

Sep 9, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The plaintiffs, Athena Diagnostics, Inc., Isis Innovation Ltd. and Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V., developed and patented a method for diagnosing patients with the autoimmune disorder Myasthenia Gravis. The majority of patients with Myasthenia Gravis produce antibodies that attack their acetyl choline receptors, which causes the patients to experience waning muscle strength throughout the day. These patients are typically diagnosed by tests that detect the presence of autoantibodies to acetyl choline receptors. Approximately 20 percent of patients suffering from Myasthenia Gravis, however, do not produce acetyl choline receptor autoantibodies. The inventors of the patent asserted in this case discovered that Myasthenia Gravis patients who do not produce autoantibodies to acetyl choline receptors instead produce IgG antibodies that attack the N-terminal domains of muscle specific tyrosine kinase (“MuSK”), a receptor that is located on the surface of neuromuscular junctions. Relying on this discovery, the inventors developed an alternative method for diagnosing Myasthenia Gravis based on the detection of MuSK-specific autoantibodies. The claimed diagnostic methods are performed by attaching a radioactive isotope to the MuSK receptor protein or fragments thereof, introducing it into a sample of body fluid, and then detecting the presence of any antibody-antigen complexes formed between the radiolabeled receptor and antibodies present in the body fluid.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for infringement, alleging that the asserted patent claimed a law of nature, namely that certain Myasthenia Gravis patients produce autoantibodies to MuSK. Defendants further alleged that the asserted claims lack an inventive concept because they utilize standard techniques well-known in the art to perform the diagnostic method. Plaintiffs argued that the radiolabeled MuSK protein used in their methods is not a naturally occurring protein, and consequently, the claims are not directed to a law of nature. Plaintiffs also argued that utilizing a non-naturally occurring protein in a combination of known procedures transforms the claims and makes them patent eligible.

Under the first step of the Alice test, the district court rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that their claims were patent eligible because they include the use of a radiolabeled compound that is not naturally occurring. Instead, the district court described the focus of the diagnostic methods to be the interaction of radiolabeled MuSK and patient body fluid, and held the interaction of these molecules to be naturally occurring. Turning to step two of the Alice test, the district court held that it could not determine whether the claims of the asserted patent contained an inventive concept that transformed them into patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the district court stated that it could not determine at the motion to dismiss stage whether the combinations of steps claimed in the asserted patents were merely a series of techniques standard in the art or whether they were sufficiently inventive to deserve patent protection because it would be required to make factual determinations that went beyond what was apparent on the face of the complaint.

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, C.A. No. 15-cv.40075-IT (D. Mass. Aug. 25, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.