BLOOMINGTON, Ind.-the case is set for oral argument before the U.s. Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 7, presents the Court with the challenge of deciding whether medical diagnostic process should be eligible for consideration for patent protection. According to a Professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law is familiar with it, the case might have important implications for many areas of technology.
On Mayo collaborative services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., the Court will hear arguments about whether a method with regard to the treatment of Crohn's disease patients with thiopurine drugs between these types of subjects that will receive patent protection. Drug metabolites in the blood is converted to the patient, and by determining the levels of metabolites, doctors can adjust the dose of the drug.
"Mayo, challenger, held that the patent only reflects the process of natural methods, and that if the patent is enforced, other health care providers will be pre-empted from developing diagnostic techniques are also based on a natural process," said Mark d. Janis, a professor at the law school Maurer. "Prometheus argues that there is nothing natural about synthetic medication to manage the body, or rate changes in blood chemistry that happens when the drug was administered."
The Supreme Court had previously decided that natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not eligible for patent protection. Janis "Principle generally accepted by both," said, "but the Court never managed to explain how to determine if something is too ' natural ' or ' too ' abstract, and I question whether it is really worth to devise reliable tests in law to do so."
In 2010, Bilski v. Kappos, a court heard a case involving patent eligibility methods for risk hedging commodity trade. The Court ruled that the claimed method that does not qualify the subject because it is abstract, but according to Janis, small bright Court on what "abstract" means, set the stage for the case of Mayo.