Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to protect proprietary methods and technologies that we develop under the patent and other intellectual property laws of the United States, Israel and other countries, so that we can prevent others from unlawfully using our inventions and proprietary information. As of March 1, 2017, our patent portfolio included a total of 49 issued U.S. patents, two issued Australian patents, three issued European Union patents, all validated in UK, Germany and France, and one validated also in Denmark, four issued Israeli patents, one issued Japanese patent, one issued Korean patent, 41 pending patent applications worldwide, consisting of 20 U.S. patent applications, four of which received notice of allowance, six applications that are pending in Europe, two of which received a notice of allowance, two applications pending in Israel, one application pending in Japan, two applications pending in Canada, three applications pending in China, three applications pending in Brazil, and two PCT applications. There can be no assurance, however, that any of these pending patent applications will result in issued patents. The patent position of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including ours, is generally uncertain and involves complex legal and factual considerations, and, therefore, validity and enforceability cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents may be challenged, deemed unenforceable, invalidated, or circumvented.
Furthermore, the standards that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and may change. There is also no uniform, worldwide policy regarding the subject matter and scope of claims granted or allowable in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents. Furthermore, the field of microRNAs is new and developing. Accordingly, there is significant uncertainty about what patents will be issued, and what their claims may cover. It is likely that there will be significant litigation and other proceedings, such as interference proceedings and opposition proceedings, in certain patent offices, relating to patent rights in the microRNA field. Others may attempt to invalidate our intellectual property rights. Currently, there is an opposition proceeding pending against one of our patents in Europe. This opposition relates to a patent granted by the European Patent Office that claims the use of miR-34a for the preparation of a pharmaceutical composition for treating cancer where the cancer is p53 negative. Even if this opposition is successful, we do not anticipate that the result will have a materially adverse effect on our business.
Even if our other rights are not directly challenged, disputes among third parties could lead to the weakening or invalidation of our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we do not know the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights or the breadth of claims that will be allowed in any patents issued to us or to others. Additionally, the mere issuance of a patent does not guarantee that it is valid or enforceable, so even issued patents may not be valid or enforceable against third parties.
In addition, we cannot be certain that we hold the rights to the technology covered by our pending patent applications or to other proprietary technology required for us to commercialize our proposed tests and products. Because certain U.S. patent applications are confidential until patents issue, and because certain applications will not be filed in foreign countries, third parties may have filed patent applications for technology covered by our pending patent applications without our being aware of those applications, and our patent applications may not have priority over those applications. For this and other reasons, we may be unable to secure desired patent rights, thereby losing desired exclusivity. Thus, it is possible that one or more organizations will hold patent rights to which we will need a license. If those organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights on reasonable terms, we will not be able to market our tests and products.
From time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business. There have been several cases involving "gene patents" and diagnostic claims that have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 13, 2013, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Court held that claims to isolated genomic DNA were not patentable subject matter, but claims to complementary DNA (cDNA) molecules were patentable subject matter. The effect of the decision on patents for other isolated natural products is uncertain, and this uncertainty includes microRNAs, which have a different chemical composition, differ in size, and have a more complicated discovery process than DNA. On March 20, 2012, in Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Court held that several claims drawn to measuring drug metabolite levels from patient samples and correlating them to drug doses were not patentable subject matter. Although the decision relates to biomarker method patents, relating to simple methods, for affecting treatment decisions, the decision has created uncertainty around the ability to patent certain biomarker-related method patents. On June 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. The decision dealt with the subject matter eligibility of a non-invasive method for detecting paternally inherited cell-free fetal DNA from a blood sample of the pregnant woman carrying a fetus. The district court ruled that the method claims were patent ineligible and the Federal Circuit agreed. In December 2015, the CAFC denied an en banc hearing of this case. These decisions have increased the uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future as well as the value of current and future patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. federal courts and the Patent Office, the interpretation of laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business
On March 4, 2014, the USPTO issued a memorandum to patent examiners titled 2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products. These guidelines instruct USPTO examiners on the ramifications of the Prometheus and Myriad rulings. In addition, these guidelines reflect the USPTO's interpretation of Supreme Court case law addressing patent subject matter eligibility. As such, the guidelines are subject to challenge in a court proceeding and are subject to modification by future court or USPTO decisions.
On December 15, 2014, the USPTO released the revised subject matter eligibility examination guidance to patent examiners entitled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (the "Interim Guidance"). The Interim Guidance intends to assist USPTO patent examiners to evaluate inventions that may be related to law of nature, natural phenomena, and/or an abstract idea. The Interim Guidance addresses the concerns raised by the public against the guidance issued in March of 2014 – namely that the USPTO applied with too broad a brush the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the judicial exceptions (law of nature, natural phenomena, and/or an abstract idea). The USPTO's new analysis, focusing on the claims as a whole and an analysis of the "markedly different" properties of the claimed subject matter (as compared to the natural counterpart product) is a balanced approach. The Interim Guidance also appears to indicate that a claim that recites a natural phenomenon, such as a diagnostic process or method, will satisfy Section 101 if the claim sufficiently limits the practical application of the natural phenomenon. The USPTO issued another update in July 2015 to provide additional information for subject matter eligibility. While we believe our patents and pending patent applications include claims that are patentable under current US law, as well as in foreign jurisdictions, no assurances can be given that a federal district court of the USPTO would agree.
In addition, Congress has directed the USPTO to study effective ways to provide independent, confirming genetic diagnostic test activity where gene patents and exclusive licensing for primary genetic diagnostic tests exist. This study will examine the impact that independent second opinion testing has on providing medical care to patients; the effect that providing independent second opinion genetic diagnostic testing would have on the existing patent and license holders of an exclusive genetic test; the impact of current practices on testing results and performance; and the role of insurance coverage on the provision of genetic diagnostic tests. The USPTO was directed to report the findings of the study to Congress and provide recommendations for establishing the availability of independent confirming genetic diagnostic test activity by June 16, 2012. On August 28, 2012, the Department of Commerce sent a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee leadership updating them on the status of the genetic testing report. The letter stated in part: "Given the complexity and diversity of the opinions, comments, and suggestions provided by interested parties, and the important policy considerations involved, we believe that further review, discussion, and analysis are required before a final report can be submitted to Congress." The USPTO issued a Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing on Genetic Diagnostic Testing on January 25, 2012, and held additional public hearings in February and March 2013. In September 2015, the USPTO submitted a report to Congress pursuant to Section 27 of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act. The report stated that in view of the altered legal landscape, the USPTO's recommendations to Congress are limited in scope. The report provided three recommendations. The first recommendation was to proceed cautiously, monitoring changes in the actual availability of gene-based diagnostic tests from multiple providers. The second recommendation was to consider creating mechanisms to facilitate sharing data on diagnostic correlations in order to build robust databases of the relationships between genetic mutations and the presence, absence, or likelihood of acquiring the relevant medical condition. The third recommendation was to consider the role of cost and insurance. It is unclear whether the recommendations of this study will be acted upon by Congress to change the law or process in a manner that could negatively impact our patent portfolio or our future research and development efforts.