The U.S. Supreme Court, in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, once again pointed out that everything under the sun is not necessarily patentable. Questions continue to exist, however, over exactly where the court draws the lines when considering whether a law of nature or natural phenomena may form the bases for a valid patent. More importantly, the court’s Prometheus decision underscores that, if someone is interested in protecting fundamental methods or research findings, particularly when dealing with diagnostic methods, one needs to consider a wider array of tools than just patents.
The ‘Prometheus’ Opinion
Prometheus is another in a series of cases where the Supreme Court has asserted a more narrow view of the patent system’s protections than that of the appeals court which normally hears patent cases, the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit twice looked at Prometheus’ patents and thought they were fine. The Supreme Court begged to differ, and unanimously held them invalid under §101 of the Patent Act for seeking to claim a law of nature. In lay terms, the court said the patents’ claims were just not the kind of thing for which someone should obtain a patent.
This content has been archived.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]
