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

Sharon E. Roberg-Perez, Ph.D.

Partner

Co-Chair, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee

Matthew McFarlane

Related Publications

November 23, 2021
Briefly: Five tips for presenting your appeal
Ryan Marth and Ryan MacDonald - Minnesota Lawyer
October 26, 2021
Briefly: In Briefs, What a Difference a Font Can Make
Eric Magnuson, Rebecca Zadaka - Minnesota Lawyer
September 28, 2021
Briefly: Federal appeals: How much notice is enough?
Stephen Safranski and Geoffrey Kozen - Minnesota Lawyer
August 26, 2021
Briefly: Motions for judicial notice in the 8th Circuit
Glenn Danas, Eric Magnuson, Stephen Safranski - Minnesota Lawyer
Back to Top