With medical research increasingly focused on technically sophisticated diagnostic methods and selective application of therapies to the needs of different individuals, we can only speculate on the practical implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Mayo v. Prometheus (Appeal No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012). In the decision, the court itself recognized the potential for disincentivizing research and collaboration, but passed the buck to Congress to make any necessary policy changes. Unless Congress can pass a law to define what is a “law of nature,” the problems created by the Mayo decision will remain for piecemeal solution in future decisions.
To highlight the issue, let’s take a hypothetical example.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
