Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

GPTKB entity

Predicate	Object
gptkbp:instanceOf	gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court_case
gptkbp:alsoKnownAs	Mayo v. Prometheus
gptkbp:arguedDate	December 7, 2011
gptkbp:citation	gptkb:Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc. gptkb:Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International 132 S. Ct. 1289 182 L. Ed. 2d 321 566 U.S. 66
gptkbp:country	gptkb:United_States
gptkbp:date	March 20, 2012
gptkbp:decision	unanimous
gptkbp:docketNumber	10-1150
gptkbp:heldBy	A process that merely applies a law of nature using conventional steps is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
gptkbp:historicalPeriod	Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 628 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label	Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
gptkbp:impact	Significantly affected patent law regarding natural laws and abstract ideas
gptkbp:judge	gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkbp:majorityOpinionBy	gptkb:Stephen_Breyer
gptkbp:petitioner	Mayo Collaborative Services
gptkbp:relatedTo	gptkb:35_U.S.C._§_101
gptkbp:response	Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
gptkbp:subject	medical diagnostics patent eligibility
gptkbp:subsequentHistory	Remanded to Federal Circuit
gptkbp:bfsParent	gptkb:Section_101
gptkbp:bfsLayer	6