Mayo Overlap Between Sections 101 And 102/103 — Not New
Law360, New York ( July 20, 2012, 1:20 PM EDT) -- In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.,[1] the Supreme Court held patent claims directed to a method for administering a drug to optimize its therapeutic efficacy invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter. The basis for the court's decision was that the claimed method described a law of nature, and other claim limitations described only "routine, conventional activity" well known in the art.[2] Thus, said the court, the added limitations "when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant" to the core unpatentable subject matter.[3] In so ruling, the court recognized that "in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the §101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the §102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap."[4]...
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.