Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.


One year after Vanda, are diagnostics patents transforming into methods of treatment to overcome Mayo-based rejections?

What impact have Mayo and Vanda had for applicants attempting to obtain patent protection for inventions involving methods of diagnosis and methods of treatment?

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

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Study results.


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

  2. Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K., Minssen, T. & Liddicoat, J. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 513–518 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Guidance, USPTO. (USPTO, 2014–2019).

  4. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. in F.3d Vol. 887 1117 (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2018).

  5. USPTO Memorandum—Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals. (2018).

  6. Holman, C. Biotechnol. Law Rep. 37, 117–125 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1119–1123 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K., Jordan, M. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 820–825 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Jordan, M. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 1146–1149 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Amici Brief (US Supreme Court). 18–817 (2019).

  11. Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K. & Aboy, M. Vanderbilt J. Entertain. Technol. Law (in the press).

  12. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. 797 F.3d 1020, 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2015).

  13. Aboy, M. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1118–1125 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Thambisetty, S. J. Law Biosci. 3, 691–696 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. in S. Ct. Vol. 134 2347 (Supreme Court, 2014).

Download references


This work was supported, in part, by a Novo Nordisk Foundation grant for a scientifically independent Collaborative Research Programme in Biomedical Innovation Law (grant agreement number NNF17SA0027784).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mateo Aboy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Note

Examples/case studies of patents.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K. et al. One year after Vanda, are diagnostics patents transforming into methods of treatment to overcome Mayo-based rejections?. Nat Biotechnol 38, 279–283 (2020).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


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