← All Authorities
United States Leading Case patents

Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc

566 U.S. 66 (2012)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Year2012
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Patent claims directed to laws of nature are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 unless they add an inventive concept beyond the natural law itself.

Key Principle

Claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 unless they contain an inventive concept beyond the natural law itself.

Area of Law

ip

Related Cases

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd (2014) 254 CLR 337

Foreign words used as trademarks are assessed for descriptiveness in the Australian English-speaking market; Italian words for coffee were registrable as not inherently descriptive.

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd v Commonwealth (2012) 246 CLR 561

Statutory licence scheme for sound recordings validly enacted under constitutional copyright power and did not constitute an unjust acquisition of property.

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (2012) 248 CLR 42

An ISP that failed to act on infringement notices did not authorise subscribers' copyright infringement via BitTorrent, as it lacked the requisite control over the infringing acts.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Mayo Collaborative Services v ...