• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

United states Federal Circuit

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Vs. Mayo Collaborative Services (Decided on 17.12.2010)

Test for determining the patent eligibility of process claims- This case returns to the present court on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of the Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos - In the instant case District court's granted summary judgment of invalidity of Plaintiff's patents related to claim methods for determining the optimal dosage of thiopurine drugs to treat gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinalautoimmune diseases was reversed and remanded where,

1) Plaintiff's asserted method claims recite a patent-eligible application of naturally occurring correlations between metabolite levels and efficacy or toxicity, and thus do not wholly preempt all uses of the recited correlations; and

2) Treatment methods claimed in plaintiff's patents satisfy the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test, as they "transform an article into a different state of thing," and this transformation is central to the purpose of the claimed process.

Held, that the District court erred as a matter of law in finding Prometheus's asserted medical treatment claims to be drawn to no nstatutory subject matter under this court's machine-or-transformation test, which was held in In re Bilski.

To be the definitive test for determining the patentability of a process under § 101.The Supreme Court held that the machine-or-transformation test, although "a useful and important clue," was not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of process claims. The judgment of the district court was reversed and remanded to the court with instructions to deny Mayo's motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims are invalid under § 101.

• INSURANCE LAWS

Supreme Court of Texas

Gilbert Texas Constr., LP Vs. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, (Decided on 17.12.2010)

Suit against its insurer for denying coverage in an underlying litigation- Gilbert sued Underwriters for breach of contract and Insurance Code violations and also urged that Underwriters waived its right to deny coverage and was estoppedto deny coverage. Both parties moved for summary judgment on all issues. The Trial court granted Gilbert's motion as to coverage and granted Underwriters' motion as to Gilbert's statutory, waiver, and estoppel claims.-Underwriters and Gilbert both appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Underwriters, holding that the breach of contract claim fell within the policy's contractual liability exclusion. It additionally held that Underwriters had not waived its policy defenses and was note stopped from raising the defense of non-coverage. Gilbert asserted that

(1) the contractual liability exclusion does not apply because Gilbert's liability arises from its own breach of contract and not from another's liability that Gilbert assumed;

(2) even if the exclusion applies, an exception to the exclusion brings the breach of contract claim back into coverage because Gilbert would have been liable to RTR in the absence of its contract with DART; and

(3) In the alternative, Underwriters asserted control over Gilbert's defense and prejudiced Gilbert, so under anestoppeltheory Gilbert should be awarded damages for the amount it paid to settle RTR's lawsuit.

Held, the Court of Appeals judgment was affirmed saying that the Trial Court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the issue of coverage as the contractual exclusion applies to thebreach of contract claimand the exception for liability the insured would have absent its contract is inapplicable and Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the insurer's actions and the insurer is not required to pay damages to plaintiff under an estoppel theory.

• EVIDENCE LAWS

Federal Court of Australia

CMA Corporation Limited Vs. Rowe (Decided on 20.12.2010)

Whether a party who has called a witness should be permitted to recall that witness after that witness' evidence has been concluded- the applicants argued that the entries in the photocopied extracts had been placed either in the original diaries or in a photocopy of the relevant pages in recent times.

Held, a tactical decision made not to ask the witness questions directed to particular topics, notwithstanding that those topics were contentious and notwithstanding that the witness could have given relevant evidence .Therefore, application to recall witness was refused.