Patent-Ineligible Methods of Treatment

Janice M. Mueller, Patent-Ineligible Methods of Treatment, in MUELLER ON PATENT LAW, VOL. I (PATENTABILITY AND VALIDITY) (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2012), last revised October 2015

12 Pages Posted: 7 Oct 2015  

Janice M. Mueller

Chisum Patent Academy

Date Written: October 3, 2015

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s sweeping 2012 decision in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. was soon to impact the medical diagnostics research community beyond the parties to Mayo. In the view of this author, the Mayo framework created the potential for (presumably) unintended negative consequences that may chill future medical diagnostic research (an issue raised by Prometheus and various amici in Mayo). The Federal Circuit’s June 2015 decision in in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., aptly illustrates the concern. Compelled by the Supreme Court’s broad language defining the second step of the Mayo framework, the Federal Circuit in Ariosa affirmed the invalidation under §101 of a groundbreaking patent on prenatal testing.

Keywords: patent, patent eligible subject matter, validity, methods of treatment, medical diagnostics

JEL Classification: K19, K29, K39, K41

Suggested Citation

Mueller, Janice M., Patent-Ineligible Methods of Treatment (October 3, 2015). Janice M. Mueller, Patent-Ineligible Methods of Treatment, in MUELLER ON PATENT LAW, VOL. I (PATENTABILITY AND VALIDITY) (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2012), last revised October 2015. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2669049 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2669049

Janice M. Mueller (Contact Author)

Chisum Patent Academy ( email )

951 Delong Road
Lexington, KY 40515
United States
8553244786 x2 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.muelleronpatentlaw.com

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
74
rank
293,871
Abstract Views
514
PlumX