Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

PATENTS

Mayo’s impact on patent applications related to biotechnology, diagnostics and personalized medicine

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 513–518 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

On the sixth anniversary of Mayo v. Prometheus, what impact has the US Supreme Court decision had on patent subject-matter eligibility and the prosecution of biotech-related patent applications before the US Patent and Trademark Office?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The fate of patent applications with Mayo citations.

References

  1. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  2. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

  3. Haanes, E. J. & Cànaves, J. M. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 758–760 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fox, J. L. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 373–374 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malecek, M.J. et al. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., et al., No. 15-1182, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sequenom-Cert-Petition.pdf (2016).

  6. Eisenberg, R. S. J. Sci. Technol. Law 21, 256–286 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Minssen, T. & Nilsson, D. Queen Mary J. Intellect. Prop. 2, 376–388 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. 788 F.3d 1371 (2015).

  9. Holman, C. M. Geo. Mason Law Rev. 23, 901–940 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Valoir, T. HIPLA comments on patent subject matter eligibility. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RT2%20Comments%20Houston%20IP%20Law%20Association.pdf (2017).

  11. Bahr, R.W. Changes in examination procedure pertaining to subject matter eligibility, recent subject matter eligibility decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). USPTO https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (2018).

  12. Chao, B. & Mapes, A. Patently-O Patent Law J. 10, 10–14, https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2016/04/Chao.2016.PersonalizedMedicine.pdf (2016).

  13. Ledford, H. Nature 536, 382 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).

  15. USPTO. RCE outreach statistics (USPTO, 2012).

  16. Gaudry, K., Grab, L. & McKeon, T.W. IPWatchdog https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/12/trends-in-subject-matter-eligibility-for-biotechnology-inventions/id=59738/ (2015).

  17. Davis, R. Law360 https://www.law360.com/articles/783604/kappos-calls-for-abolition-of-section-101-of-patent-act (2016).

  18. Sachs, R.R. Twenty-two ways Congress can save section 101. Bilski Blog https://www.bilskiblog.com/2015/02/twenty-two-ways-congress-can-save-section-101/ (2015).

  19. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. 887 F.3d 1117 (2018).

  20. Bahr, R.W. Recent subject matter eligibility decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals. USPTO https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-vanda-20180607.PDF (2018).

  21. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Aventisub LLC v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. 203 F. Supp.3d 412 (2016).

  22. USPTO subject matter eligibility examples: life sciences (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported, in part, by a Novo Nordisk Foundation Grant for a scientifically independent Collaborative Research Programme in Biomedical Innovation Law (grant no. NNF17SA027784).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Law, Medicine, and Life Sciences (LML), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Mateo Aboy, Cristina Crespo, Kathleen Liddell & Johnathon Liddicoat

  2. Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Timo Minssen

Authors
  1. Mateo Aboy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen Liddell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timo Minssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Johnathon Liddicoat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mateo Aboy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K. et al. Mayo’s impact on patent applications related to biotechnology, diagnostics and personalized medicine. Nat Biotechnol 37, 513–518 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0111-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0111-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing