We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In an important decision that most directly impacts the medical diagnostics industry but will also have wider reverberations, the U.S. Supreme Court not only reconfirmed that abstract ideas and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection, but unanimously approached the problem of determining patent eligibility in a way that once again requires companies to reassess their patent portfolios and those of their competitors
In Prometheus v. Mayo Collaborative (2008-1403, Fed. Cir., Dec. 17, 2010) ("Prometheus II"), the Federal Circuit has, on remand from the Supreme Court, again found Prometheus's claims directed to methods of treating the human body with medication to be patent-eligible subject matter
In a lengthy opinion invoking rules of grammar, stare decisis and the settled expectations of the patent community, and even 19th-century Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Circuit yesterday reaffirmed en banc the separate written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, upholding its earlier decision in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co
In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 2008-1403 (September 16, 2009), the Federal Circuit, on first impression, held medical diagnostic claims to be patent-eligible subject matter under the "machine or transformation" test first elucidated in In re Bilski
