The Continuing Saga Of Mayo v. Prometheus

Review of biotech patent cases trying to determine after Prometheus what “extra” is enough to confer patent eligibility on a law of nature.

February 25, 2014

Law360, New York (February 25, 2014, 12:47 PM ET) ‐‐ For decades, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court had assured patentees in the biotechnology space that “anything under the sun that is made by man” could be patent‐eligible.1 This understanding was upended in 2012, when the Supreme Court revisited the question of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.2

1. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) (internal citations omitted).
2. Mayo Collaborative Services Inc. v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

All Content © 2003‐2014, Portfolio Media, Inc.

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Disclaimer

Jamie R. Kurtz

Partner

Co-Chair, Health Care Litigation Group

Matthew McFarlane

Related Publications

November 30, 2022
SCOTUS Term in Review
Ryan Marth and Caitlinrose Fisher - Eight Circuit Fall 2022 Newsletter
November 19, 2022
How to Use the USPTO Patent Public Search Tool
Miles Finn, Rajin Olson, Kelson Bain, and Ian LaForge - IPWatchdog
November 15, 2022
Briefly: Behind the Veil of Judicial Recusal
Eric Magnuson - Minnesota Lawyer
November 1, 2022
Briefly: 'Extraordinary Circumstances' For Relief from Judgment
Eric Magnuson, Brandon Carmack - Minnesota Lawyer
October 2022
In No Uncertain Terms
Bryan Mechell - The Robins Kaplan Quarterly
Back to Top