Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Intellectual Property: patent and laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas: although “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable subject matter under §101 of the Patent Act, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185, “an application of a law of nature . . . to a known structure or process may deserve patent protection,” id., at 187. But to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent­ eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words “apply it.” See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 71–72. It must limit its reach to a particular, inventive application of the law; Prometheus’ process is not patent eligible; the three steps add nothing specific to the laws of nature other than what is well-understood, routine, conven­tional activity, previously engaged in by those in the field; further support for the view that simply appending conven­tional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable is provided in O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 114–115; Neilson v. Harford, Webster’s Patent Cases 295, 371; Bilski, supra, at ___–___; and Benson, supra, at 64, 65, 67; in telling a doctor to measure metabolite levels and to consider the resulting measurements in light of the correla­tions they describe, they tie up his subsequent treatment decision regardless of whether he changes his dosage in the light of the infer­ence he draws using the correlations. And they threaten to inhibit the development of more refined treatment recommendations that combine Prometheus’ correlations with later discoveries. This rein­forces the conclusion that the processes at issue are not patent eligi­ble, while eliminating any temptation to depart from case law prece­dent (U.S.S.Ct., 20.03.12, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., J. Breyer, unanimous).

Propriété intellectuelle, brevets, lois de la nature, idées abstraites : les lois de la nature, les phénomènes naturels, et les idées abstraites ne peuvent être brevetés. Mais une application d’une loi de la nature à une structure connue ou à un processus est susceptible de mériter la protection du droit des brevets. Pour cela, comme ici dans le domaine médical, l’objet du brevet convoité doit faire davantage que décrire une loi de la nature (la mesure du niveau du métabolisme) tout en ajoutant des corrélations que l’on peut en tirer en vue d’un traitement médical (« appliquer ces résultats à » (un traitement)). Aucune inventivité n’est présente ici, et accorder un brevet dans de telles circonstances reviendrait à empêcher des développements scientifiques futurs.