close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses LabCorp Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday opted to dismiss a case having potentially broad implications for the question of what constitutes patentable subject matter. The Court heard oral arguments in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories on March 21, but decided to dismiss LabCorp's appeal as improvidently granted. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and Souter, dissented.

At issue in the case was whether Metabolite's patent was invalid because one cannot patent "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981); 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claim in dispute involves a method for diagnosing a vitamin deficiency, and includes only the steps of (1) measuring the level of certain amino acids, and then, (2) correlating an elevated level of the tested amino acids with a vitamin B deficiency. LabCorp argued that this claim amounted to a monopoly on a basic scientific principle (i.e., the correlation step). Metabolite countered that its claim was directed to a practical application, and further that the claim met the criteria of having a "useful, concrete, and tangible result." See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F. 3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

LabCorp

's petition was troubled from the beginning. In the district court below, LabCorp never asserted section 101 as a defense. Moreover, even in the Federal Circuit, LabCorp only referred fleetingly to this argument, and the Federal Circuit opinion did not address the issue. It was the Supreme Court which thrust the "law of nature" issue to the forefront, asking for the Solicitor General's view on whether Metabolite's claim was patentable subject matter under Diamond v. Diehr. The Solicitor General recommended against granting certiorari because the issue of natural phenomenon as patentable subject matter was not sufficiently raised in the lower court. Despite these concerns, the Court agreed to hear the appeal.

The case has garnered attention because of its important implications. In particular, critics of State Street hoped that the Court would take this opportunity to limit patentable subject matter and accordingly stem the tide of business method patents. Others, particularly in the drug and biotechnology industries, were concerned that the Court would reach too far and potentially eliminate important diagnosis patents with similar "correlating" limitations.

While Justices Breyer, Stevens and Souter dissented from the dismissal, the dissent nonetheless addresses the merits and indicates support in the Supreme Court for limiting patentable subject matter—at least on the facts of that case. Justice Breyer opines that "this is not a case on the boundary" and that the claim would be invalid regardless of how one reads the "law of nature" case law. But the dissent goes further, specifically citing State Street and noting that the "useful, concrete, and tangible result" test from that case has never been adopted by the Supreme Court and, in fact, is contrary to precedent. It is not clear whether a majority of the Supreme Court would take this view, but it may be significant that 3 of the 8 justices believed that the case should be decided on the merits in spite of the significant procedural problems. It would not be surprising to see the Court address the "law of nature" issue in the near future, particularly as parties on both sides of the issue are now aware of the Court's high interest in this area.


For further information, please contact:

Michael J. Sacksteder, Litigation Partner
msacksteder@fenwick.com, 415.875.2450

Darryl M. Woo, Litigation Partner
dwoo@fenwick.com, 650.335.7139

Heather N. Mewes, Litigation Associate
hmewes@fenwick.com, 415.875.2302

This update is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.

© 2006 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.