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...
To view the full article, register now.

UK Financial Services

UK Financial Services

Read Our Latest UK Financial Services Coverage

Financial Services Law360 UK provides breaking news and analysis on the financial sector. Coverage includes UK and European Union policy, enforcement, and litigation involving banks, asset management firms, and other financial services organizations.