The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in the case of Prometheus v. Mayo, a case that is critically important to the field of life science. It concerns the intellectual property boundary line between what is a fact of nature and what is a human invention. It is a devilishly difficult question, and one that matters greatly. If we set the line of protection at too narrow a point, we will strangle burgeoning fields such as personalized medicine by denying the intellectual property protection they need to survive. If we set the line of protection too broadly, we could block off the next generation of great inventions, whatever they may be.
Prometheus concerned an invention in the field of personalized medicine, in which researchers develop tests that operate on biological, genetic and clinical data from a patient to provide diagnoses and treatments specific to the patient. Personalized medicine techniques were used to treat Steve Jobs’ pancreatic cancer, for example, and the field is at the forefront of battling cancer and other diseases.
This content has been archived.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]
