Abstract
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10104 3800, USA *Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 212 218 2293 Fax: +1 212 218 2200 Email: lperry@fchs.com For at least 30 years, the Supreme Court has struggled with the question of what constitutes patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 (Inventions patentable). While “ laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas” are not patentable subject matter under §101, “an application of a law of nature ... to a known structure or process may [deserve] patent protection” [1]. The latest Supreme Court decision of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories was related to this issue of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 and grappled with patent claims drawn to a law of nature [2]. In this case, however, the Supreme Court held the patents to be invalid as claiming a law of nature that was ineligible subject matter under §101. This article discusses this recent Supreme Court decision and its potential implications in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
