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.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.