Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories
Bloomberg did a piece on Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories titled: Blood-Test Case at Top U.S. Court May Send Patent ‘Shock Waves’ .
The question presented, from Prometheus, is:
Whether the Federal Circuit correctly held that concrete methods for improving the treatment of patients suffering from autoimmune diseases by using individualized metabolite measurements to inform the calibration of the patient’s dosages of synthetic thiopurines are patentable processes under 35 U.S.C. §101.
**Of legal writing, note an article in the New York Times, titled Keep the Briefs Brief, Literary Justices Advise , which included the text:
The justices had very little good to say about articles published in law reviews.
“What the academy is doing, as far as I can tell,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, “is largely of no use or interest to people who actually practice law.”
Keywords: Bryan A. Garner, “the art of persuading judges”
BIO filed an amicus brief supporting Prometheus:
In this case, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether diagnostic and personalized medicine claims that depend on a correlation of observed phenomena should be excluded from the patent system at the outset, as patent-ineligible abstract ideas or “laws of nature.” BIO’s brief argues that these judicially-created exclusions from patent-eligibility have traditionally been used only under narrow circumstances, and that their expansion to biomarker-assisted therapeutic methods is unwarranted, legally unsound, and fraught with serious unforeseen consequences on investment and R&D incentives in the field of personalized medicine.
The question presented, from Prometheus, is:
Whether the Federal Circuit correctly held that concrete methods for improving the treatment of patients suffering from autoimmune diseases by using individualized metabolite measurements to inform the calibration of the patient’s dosages of synthetic thiopurines are patentable processes under 35 U.S.C. §101.
**Of legal writing, note an article in the New York Times, titled Keep the Briefs Brief, Literary Justices Advise , which included the text:
The justices had very little good to say about articles published in law reviews.
“What the academy is doing, as far as I can tell,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, “is largely of no use or interest to people who actually practice law.”
Keywords: Bryan A. Garner, “the art of persuading judges”
BIO filed an amicus brief supporting Prometheus:
In this case, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether diagnostic and personalized medicine claims that depend on a correlation of observed phenomena should be excluded from the patent system at the outset, as patent-ineligible abstract ideas or “laws of nature.” BIO’s brief argues that these judicially-created exclusions from patent-eligibility have traditionally been used only under narrow circumstances, and that their expansion to biomarker-assisted therapeutic methods is unwarranted, legally unsound, and fraught with serious unforeseen consequences on investment and R&D incentives in the field of personalized medicine.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home