This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Perspective

Aug. 30, 2012

Precedent for Prometheus

A new application of a law of nature might be patent-eligible, but it must also be more than the application of the law to a specific technology. By Audrey A. Millemann of Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Gordin


In its very thorough decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that laws of nature are not patentable.


The law defines patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. Section 101. In a long line of cases going back to the mid-1800s, however, the Supreme Court has upheld an exception to pate...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up