Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
GPTKB entity
Statements (26)
| 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)
|
| 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 |
7
|
| http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
|