PopTika / Shutterstock.com
More clarity is needed on the application of Alice and Mayo to patent eligibility—particularly for firms developing innovative medical diagnostic techniques, say Kara Specht and Yinan Liu of Finnegan.
Life science companies invest substantial resources in research and innovation to drive medical advancement. To maintain the momentum of innovation, it is crucial to ensure clarity and certainty in patent eligibility.
The US Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Servs v Prometheus Lab’ys (2012), ruled that the diagnostic patents in suit were invalid because they merely described the natural correlation between the drug’s metabolite levels in the blood and its effectiveness.Following Mayo, the Supreme Court, in Alice v CLS Bank Int’l (2014), articulated a two-step test for examining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Under this test, a patent claim is ineligible if it 1) is directed to a patent-ineligible concept (such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), and 2) lacks elements sufficient to transform the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
Patent eligibility, medical diagnostics, Alice v Mayo, innovation, Finnegan, US Supreme Court, DNA analysis