Prometheus Labs. v. Mayo Collaborative Services -- Briefing Schedule

By Donald Zuhn --

On June 29, one day after issuing its decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Federal Circuit's decision below, and remanded to the appellate court two cases concerning medical diagnostic claims:  Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.  v. Mayo Collaborative Services and Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec (see "Bilski v. Kappos: What Effects on Biotechnology Patents?").  In an Order made available today, but dated September 1, 2010, the Federal Circuit asked the parties in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services to file simultaneous supplemental briefs of not more than 20 pages addressing the effect of Bilski v. Kappos on the disposition of the case.  Pursuant to the Court's Order, the supplemental briefs must be filed by Friday, October 1.

For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:

• "Chief Judge Rader's Views on Patentable Subject Matter - Part I," August 17, 2010
• "AMP v. USPTO after Bilski v. Kappos," July 6, 2010
• "Bilski v. Kappos: What Effects on Biotechnology Patents?" July 1, 2010
• "Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)," March 17, 2010
• "Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2009)," September 16, 2009
• "The Supreme Court, In re Bilski and the Lingering Question of Labcorp v. Metabolite," June 1, 2009

Comments

[EG]

Don,

Given that Bilski contains 2 different concurring opinions, along with Scalia's refusal to join Parts II B-2 and C-2 of the Opinion of the Court, the parties are going to have a hard time addressing the impact of Bilski on what is a very different claimed calibrative dosage method in no more than 20 pages.

[6]

"going to have a hard time addressing the impact of Bilski on what is a very different claimed calibrative dosage method in no more than 20 pages."

Go with the Rader approach. One sentence. ZAM.