Last June, the United States Supreme Court granted Mayo’s petition for certiorari in Prometheus Laboratories Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, a case that addresses patentability of some methods involving personalized medicine.
This case is important to AUTM’s members — especially those with technologies relating to the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries. The court’s decision in this case could potentially impact thousands of issued patents and pending applications relevant to those industries. While AUTM has no stake in either party, it does have an interest in seeking a correct and consistent interpretation of laws affecting intellectual property. AUTM has filed an amicus brief supporting the Prometheus party.
Section 101 of the patent statute identifies the classes of invention that are eligible for patent protection. That statute has been constructed broadly by the court to exclude only three categories of invention: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. The diagnostic methods claimed by Prometheus do not fall into any of the excluded categories. Prometheus’s methods, like many other patents, are directed to personalized medicine.
We are attaching a more
detailed summary of the case authored by AUTM member Howard Bremer of WARF.