• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Biomedical Patent Found Invalid in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories

Submitted by TJ Johnson on March 23, 2012 – 10:39 AM4976One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F03%2F23%2Fbiomedical-patent-found-invalid-in-mayo-collaborative-services-v-prometheus-laboratories%2FBiomedical+Patent+Found+Invalid+in+Mayo+Collaborative+Services+v.+Prometheus+Laboratories2012-03-23+14%3A39%3A10TJ+Johnsonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D4976

Image Attributed to TJ Johnson

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, which has had a confusing track from the Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court, finally received a ruling earlier this week.  The short answer is that the claims were found in a unanimous decision to be non-patentable subject matter.

The court summarizes the claims as:

“Each claim recites (1) an “administering” step—instructing a doctor to administer the drug to his patient—(2) a “determining” step—telling the doctor to measure the resulting metabolite levels in the patient’s blood—and (3) a “wherein” step—describing the metabolite concentrations above which there is a likelihood of harmful side-effects and below which it is likely that the drug dosage is ineffective, and informing the doctor that metabolite concentrations above or below these thresholds “indicate a need” to decrease or increase (respectively) the drug dosage.”

The Court found that patent claims must do more than just apply a law of nature in order to be patent eligible subject matter.  According to the Court, the additional steps claimed were insufficient to transform the nature of the patent claims into something more than a recitation of a law of nature.  The justices found that the step of adjusting the dosage based on the level of the drug in the blood is well known in the art, and was insufficient to transform the claims to patentable subject matter.

The court did not reinstate the machine or transformation test it overruled as the sole determining factor for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Bilski v. Kappos.  Instead the court relied on its prior precedent of Diehr and Flook, analogizing the claim to Flook’s non-patentable well-known chemical process.  The Court reaffirmed its stance that laws of nature are non-patentable subject matter, with the reasoning that  although allowing the patenting of laws of nature might encourage their discovery, it could otherwise foreclose more future invention than the underlying discovery would reasonably justify.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: TJ Johnson

TJ Johnson is the Senior Patent Editor for the IP Brief and a 3L at the Washington College of Law pursuing a career in patent law. He is also the Publications Editor for the Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. Currently he is working as an intern for MacDonald, Illig, Jones and Britton in business and patent law. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering with a minor in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Nevada, Reno. Prior to law school, TJ worked designing embedded motion tracking and control systems for the solar power industry. TJ’s main interests are in patent law relating to the mechanical and computer arts. TJ enjoys flying as a private pilot, aircraft and semiconductor design, motorcycles and riding his bicycle.

TJ Johnson has written 5 posts for the IPB.

4976One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F03%2F23%2Fbiomedical-patent-found-invalid-in-mayo-collaborative-services-v-prometheus-laboratories%2FBiomedical+Patent+Found+Invalid+in+Mayo+Collaborative+Services+v.+Prometheus+Laboratories2012-03-23+14%3A39%3A10TJ+Johnsonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D4976 »

  • Isabella says:
    March 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM

    Excellent post, it is a breath of fresh air to finally find insightful writing online, I am genuinely pleased to find a blog that is not full of the ubiquitous rubbish, thank you.

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

I Can Has Copyright Law: Ben Huh of the Cheezburger Network Talks About the Internet and Copyright Testing American Diplomacy as to International IP Protection: What Will Become of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? Judge Dismisses Copyright Infringement Case Against UCLA Grooveshark Sued: Will the Safe Harbor Shield it from Liability? Trademark Law: The New Weapon Against Gangs? Google and Yahoo Avoid Infringement Suit on User-Data Generated Search Method Seeing Red: NASA Hit with Bogus Copyright Claim over Mars Rover Video Reconciling Copyright Laws With “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” To Patent or Not To Patent, That is The Question: Embryonic Stem Cell Patents Rejected in Europe Quarterback Colin Kaepernick Files to Trademark “Kaepernicking” UPenn Schools Louis Vuitton in Trademark Law Company Not Allowed to Trademark “KHORAN” Brand Wines The Internet Killed the Music Video Star
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License