US Supreme Court rejects blood monitoring patents

Biotechnology industry officials are warning that a US Supreme Court ruling on patent rights this week could have a chilling effect on the development of personalized medicine.

The Supreme Court rejected two patents covering medical tests for monitoring patients' blood, saying they are too similar to natural phenomena to receive .

The patents were held by Prometheus Laboratories, a subsidiary of Swiss food maker Nestle.

The unanimous Supreme Court decision said, "Laws of nature, and abstract ideas are not patentable" under provisions of the US Patent Act.

To be covered by a patent, "an application of a law of nature... must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words 'apply it.' It must limit its reach to a particular, inventive application of the law," said the decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

"The claims are consequently invalid," said the court's decision, which reversed an earlier ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The patents covered a method developed by Prometheus Laboratory for adjusting dosages of thiopurine treatment for patients with immune system diseases, such as Crohn's disease, a chronic .

The dosages must be adjusted precisely to ensure the drug is effective and avoids side effects.

The Supreme Court said the Prometheus patents merely followed natural laws by establishing a link between levels of certain chemicals in the blood and too high or insufficient dosages of thiopurine.

Officials from the $4 billion a year biotechnoloy industry say the court's decision could remove incentives for development of other personalized medicine devices.

"It's a major shift and will have a profound effects on personalized medicine," said Michael Samardzija, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property for the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani.

The ruling will make it "a lot more difficult" for diagnostic test makers to claim their new products are eligible for patents, Samardzija told The Wall Street Journal.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Court rules against inventors in patent case

Jun 28, 2010

(AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to weigh in on whether software, online-shopping techniques and medical diagnostic tests can be patented, saying only that inventors' request for protection of a method of hedging ...

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 04, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

US Supreme Court hears Microsoft case on patents

Apr 19, 2011

The US Supreme Court has immersed itself in patent rules in a case pitting Microsoft against a Canadian technology company that claims some versions of Word violated its patent.

Recommended for you

Cold cash just keeps washing in from ALS challenge

Aug 28, 2014

In the couple of hours it took an official from the ALS Association to return a reporter's call for comment, the group's ubiquitous "ice bucket challenge" had brought in a few million more dollars.

Medtronic spends $350M on another European deal

Aug 27, 2014

U.S. medical device maker Medtronic is building stronger ties to Europe, a couple months after announcing a $42.9 billion acquisition that involves moving its main executive offices across the Atlantic, where it can get a ...

Mind over matter for people with disabilities

Aug 26, 2014

People with serious physical disabilities are unable to do the everyday things that most of us take for granted despite having the will – and the brainpower – to do so. This is changing thanks to European ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

210
not rated yet Mar 22, 2012
" The ruling will make it "a lot more difficult" for diagnostic test makers to claim their new products are eligible for patents, Samardzija told The Wall Street Journal."

NOT REAL ONES! YOU need to read the ruling again AND the Supreme Court is bumping into the area of the patent environment that has needed closer scrutiny and a total rewrite for a LONG time. They are saying, stuff that is derived from a known biological process MUST address specific aspects of remedial or preventive care other than the fact and need of remedial or preventable disease dialog. 'What makes this 'cure' any different than known naturally occurring biological processes?! The answer to that question is made more complicated by the intrinsic inclusion of a biological process, a process that may itself be contributing to the ailment or condition (genes), as opposed to, as we have done it for 8000 years, INTRODUCING a biological or chemical agent that assists or constitutes a remedy or palliative.
word-