Konstantin Linnik Discusses Potential Implications of Sequenom v. Ariosa in the Boston Business JournalPrint PDF
Konstantin Linnik, Ph.D., a partner in Nutter's Intellectual Property Department and Life Sciences practice group, discussed the potential implications of Sequenom v. Ariosa in the Boston Business Journal. Nutter filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of biotech industry associations which urges the Supreme Court to reconsider the interpretation of patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and argues that the current approach hinders investment in the development of new diagnostics and life-saving medicines. In the article, “Supreme Court urged to slay ‘silent killer of innovation’ in life sciences,” Konstantin, a co-author of the brief, noted that recent court decisions have further eroded certainty in patents on which both diagnostics firms and drug makers rely. He points out that it’s not so much the decision in this case that matters so much as guidance as to what kinds of biological discoveries can be patented and which can’t. “The point we are making is the law is inconsistent. The U.S. has always been the champion of patent rights. This time we are not,” he said. He comments that the potential in the biotech industry for the Sequenom decision, along with previous recent decisions, to extend to critically important patents is too important to take lightly. “The infectious effect of this decision has no limit,” Konstantin added.