Patents

New Importance of Meeting Section 101 Requirements

On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., No. 10-1150.  In this case, the Court considered the validity of two patents belonging to Prometheus with claims directed towards the use of thiopurine drugs for the treatment of autoimmune diseases.  In general, the claims recited steps including (i) administering the drug to a patient; (ii) determining the number of metabolites in a patient; and (iii) adjusting the subsequent dose of the drug based upon the number of metabolites that were present in the patient.  The main issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether the subject patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to claim patentable subject matter (as held by the district court) or whether the patents claims were valid under the machine-or-transformation test (as held by the Federal Circuit).

In its opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision and held that the patents were invalid under Section 101.  Initially, the Court characterized the claims as being directed to a law of nature, namely, the relationship between concentrations of metabolites in the blood and the efficacy of a drug.  Further, the Court explained that the claims only recite “well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community . . . .”  Slip. Op. at 11 (U.S. March 20, 2012).  The Court then concluded that “the [claimed] steps are not sufficient to transform unpatentable natural correlations into patentable application of those regularities.”  Slip. Op. at 11 (U.S. March 20, 2012).

Members of the patent bar have raised several concerns with this latest Supreme Court opinion that impacts patent law:

  • The Court’s opinion will likely encourage the use of Section 101, as opposed to other conditions for patentability, in evaluating the validity of patent claims.  The concern with such a trend is that there was a traditionally low burden for meeting subject matter eligibility under Section 101 for non-business method patents.  Now, post-Prometheus, courts may argue that broad patent claims are not directed to patentable subject matter, as opposed to invalidating such claims on the basis of prior art disclosures.
  • In reaching its decision, the Court failed to outline a test to determine whether claims based upon a law of nature are directed to patentable subject matter.  After explaining why Prometheus’ patents are invalid, the Court commented that “[w]e need not, and do not, now decide whether were the steps at issue here less conventional, these features of the claims would prove sufficient to invalidate them.”  Slip. Op. at 18 (U.S. March 20, 2012).  In other words, the Court hints that a patent claim reciting a combination of a law of nature with unconventional steps may be valid, but it does not explain what would be deemed unconventional.
  • The Court’s decision adds confusion to its 2010 decision in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964.  In Bilski, the Court commented that although it is not the only test for determining whether a claimed method is patentable subject matter, “the machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101.”  Slip. Op. at 8 (U.S. June 28, 2010).  However, in Prometheus, the Court holds that some claimed methods may pass the machine-or-transformation test, but yet still fail the requirements of Section 101.

In light of the Prometheus decision, there is a new importance on meeting the requirements of Section 101, especially for patents directed to diagnostic and therapeutic processes.  While the Court’s decision creates more questions concerning what types of claims would meet subject matter eligibility, it appears that claims that could be interpreted as reciting a law of nature should drafted to include unconventional steps or other novel properties in order to meet the requirements of Section 101.

Emmett Weindruch

About Emmett Weindruch

Emmett Weindruch is a licensed patent attorney whose practice involves a broad range of federal intellectual property matters in a variety of industries, including software, manufacturing, and telecommunications. He has experience negotiating a wide-range of technology and commercial agreements, performing patent invalidity and infringement investigations, IP clearance investigations, and assisting clients in evaluating IP portfolios in anticipation of mergers or acquisitions. Emmett also has extensive patent litigation experience, including representing parties before the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the MVA IP Law Blog!

Moore & Van Allen’s IP Law Blog covers hot topics in U.S. and international intellectual property law and provides insight into critical litigation, legislative, regulatory and policy developments. In today’s highly competitive and rapidly developing business climate, technological advancements and the protection of intellectual property rights are paramount concerns common to companies, universities, and individuals operating in nearly every industry.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Matt Witsil:  View Matt Witsil's Bio View Matt Witsil's LinkedIn profile
  • Emmett Weindruch: View Emmett Weindruch's Bio View Emmett Weindruch's LinkedIn profile
  • Todd Taylor:  View Todd Taylor's Bio View Todd Taylor's LinkedIn profile
  • John Slaughter:  View John Slaughter's Bio View John Slaughter's LinkedIn profile
  • Nick Russell:  View Nick Russell's Bio
  • Ellen Rubel:  View Ellen Rubel's Bio View Ellen Rubel's LinkedIn profile
  • Esther Queen:  View Esther Queen's Bio View Esther Queen's LinkedIn profile
  • Steve Phillips:  View Steve Phillip's Bio View Steve Phillip's LinkedIn profile
  • Chuck Moore:  View Chuck Moore's Bio View Chuck Moore's LinkedIn profile
  • Mark Wilson:  View Mark Wilson's Bio View Mark Wilson's LinkedIn profile
  • Chris Knors:  View Chris Knors' Bio View Chris Knors' LinkedIn profile
  • Jeff Gray:  View Jeff Gray's Bio View Jeff Gray's LinkedIn profile
  • Andy Gerschutz:  View Andy Gerschutz's Bio View Andy Gerschutz's LinkedIn profile
  • Jim Edwards:  View Jim Edwards' Bio View Jim Edwards' LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Follow MVA

    Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

    Blog Topics

    Archives


    Our IP Practice

    Moore & Van Allen is located in the Research Triangle and Charlotte, North Carolina – two emerging hubs in the areas of biotech and energy. Moore & Van Allen’s intellectual property lawyers are highly-skilled and innovative in their approach to assisting clients in using patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and technology to achieve their business objectives.

    Our “business focused” team combines legal know-how with the technical proficiency and industry experience necessary to navigate our clients through matters in areas as diverse as nuclear power, navigation systems, microprocessor design, pollution control, pharmaceuticals, semi-conductor manufacturing, food processing, telecommunications, internet applications, computer software, business methods and consumer products.

    We offer a full range of patent, trademark, and copyright services, and our team is equipped with IP litigators with substantial state, federal, and international experience. To benefit and best serve our clients, we leverage our ongoing working relationships with highly qualified intellectual property practitioners and agents in virtually every country in the world. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA IP Team.

    Disclaimer

    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.


    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)