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
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. in S. Ct. Vol. 132 1289 (Supreme Court, 2012).
Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K., Minssen, T. & Liddicoat, J. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 513–518 (2019).
Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Guidance, USPTO. https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility (USPTO, 2014–2019).
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).
USPTO Memorandum—Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-vanda-20180607.PDF (2018).
Holman, C. Biotechnol. Law Rep. 37, 117–125 (2018).
Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1119–1123 (2016).
Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K., Jordan, M. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 820–825 (2017).
Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Jordan, M. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 1146–1149 (2018).
Amici Brief (US Supreme Court). https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hikma-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-vanda-pharmaceuticals-inc/o. 18–817 (2019).
Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K. & Aboy, M. Vanderbilt J. Entertain. Technol. Law (in the press).
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).
Aboy, M. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1118–1125 (2019).
Thambisetty, S. J. Law Biosci. 3, 691–696 (2016).
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. in S. Ct. Vol. 134 2347 (Supreme Court, 2014).
Acknowledgements
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
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Note
Examples/case studies of patents.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0440-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0440-4