By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Idexx Laboratories, Inc. v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-668-RGA (D.Del., July 1, 2016), the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim after concluding that the representative claim, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,927,298 (“the ‘298 patent”), includes the “inventive concept” of using DBS technology to monitor the health of rodent populations by analyzing blood for biomarkers of infectious disease.  The Court noted that “[t]he advances over the prior art are clear.  The invention permits one to monitor the health of rodent populations without euthanizing animals, waiting for blood to clot in a centrifuge, or shipping blood serum overnight in a refrigerated container.” Id. at *12.  Thus, the Court concluded that “[t]his inventive concept is sufficient to ‘transform the abstract idea . . . into a patent-eligible application of that idea.’” Id.

 A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

The general take away is that, under the Mayo/Alice analysis, the fact that a patent claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea does not end the inquiry.  One must then ask whether the claims provide an inventive concept.  An inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.