E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« USPTO Posts Comments on Proposed Fees Changes | Main | Early Reaction to Supreme Court Decision in Mayo v. Prometheus »

March 20, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20168e90c837b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012):

Comments

The reasoning underlying this decision, if one can call it reasoning, is shockingly and abysmally flawed. It's the judicial equivalent of ruling that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

The Court cites prior decisions which recognize that all inventions embody natural scientific principles and caution that applying the law of nature exclusionary principle too broadly could eviscerate the patent law. Then it proceeds to do just that.

The Court finds that the correlation between the level of 6-thioguanine in a patient's blood and the likelihood that such level will prove ineffective or cause harm to be a LAW OF NATURE, just like the law of gravity and Einstein's famous equation, which it also cites. Imagine that! Under the Court's rationale, every bit of scientific information rises to the level of a natural law! 230 pmol of 6-thioguanine per 8x108red blood cells is too little. Natural law! 400 pmol of 6-thioguanine per 8x108red blood cells is too much. Natural law! Between 230 pmol and 400 pmol is just right. Natural law! We better rewrite our science textbooks. There must be millions of these "natural laws" that we’re not teaching our children.

The Court also violates the first principle of claim analysis -- the claim must be analyzed as a whole. Instead, the Court breaks claim 1 of the patent into bite-size pieces, each of which it can easily dismiss as merely conventional or discover that it's yet another LAW OF NATURE.

Is there any patent that's safe from this analysis? Perhaps product patents are safe. But is there any process claim out there that can't be reformulated as a "law of nature?" And if you can't do this for the whole claim, then just pick it apart, take out the "conventional steps" and reformulate the rest as “laws of nature."

However, going forward, patent practitioners would be wise to revisit this ruling when drafting claims to medical diagnostic methods.

Going forward? People have been predicting this outcome since LabCorp. What planet have you been living on?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31